Business before Questions
	 — 
	Spoliation Advisory Panel

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report from Sir Donnell Deeny, Chairman of the Spoliation Advisory Panel, dated 12 June 2014, in respect of a painted wooden tablet, the Biccherna Panel, now in the possession of the British Library.—(John Penrose.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Halal and Kosher Meat

Philip Davies: If he will ensure that all halal and kosher meat is labelled at point of sale.

George Eustice: In the first instance, the Government believe that it is for retailers and food outlets to provide their customers with such information. However, the European Commission is currently producing a study on options for compulsory method of slaughter labelling, and we will review the options when the report is published later this year.

Philip Davies: The Minister is a good man, and I am sure he must understand the strength of feeling among the public about this issue. Surely it is in the best interests of everyone that halal and kosher meat be properly labelled, for the benefit of those who particularly want to buy it and those who particularly do not. Which consumers do the Government think will be disadvantaged by having meat fully and properly labelled at the point of sale?

George Eustice: I am aware of the strength of feeling on the issue, and my hon. Friend has been a long-standing campaigner on it, ever since his ten-minute rule Bill two years ago. There are two difficulties with the approach he suggests. In the case of halal meat, we must remember that about 80% is stunned anyway, so “halal” does not distinguish between stunned and unstunned meat. When it comes to kosher meat, we should recall that the hind quarters of the carcase are not deemed kosher anyway, so an approach along the lines he suggests would not help consumers who want to avoid unstunned meat.
	However, we will examine method of slaughter labelling when the European Commission produces its report, which is expected in the autumn.

Albert Owen: Farmers and food producers raise the issue of labelling often with me and other Members. Can the Minister assure the House that his Department is doing everything it can to have clear labelling on all packaging, particularly after the horsemeat crisis and various other issues, so that we can have country of origin and even region of origin labelling on our packaging?

George Eustice: Some new labelling requirements from the European Union have just been put in place, to distinguish between animals that are born, reared and slaughtered in a particular country, reared and slaughtered there or simply slaughtered there. That is a major improvement. We have stopped short of having compulsory country of origin labelling on processed foods, because the European Commission report suggested that it would be incredibly expensive to implement. However, we do encourage voluntary labelling on such products, and there has been widespread uptake of that.

Philip Hollobone: I am sure my constituents in Kettering would want to see halal and kosher meat labelled as such. Although the Minister is a good man, the response drafted for him by his Department was weak and pathetic. If we wait for the European Commission to rule, we will have to wait for ever. If his objection is that there is no distinction between stunned and non-stunned meat, why not label meat as such? Why cannot the UK do that ahead of the European Commission?

George Eustice: The advice we have received is that it would be better to introduce such regulation at European level. A number of other countries have considered it, including Spain and France, and have run into difficulties. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point—if one were to introduce compulsory method of slaughter labelling, I think one would go not for labelling as halal or kosher, for the reasons I gave earlier, but for labelling as stunned or unstunned.

Dangerous Dogs Strategy

Ian Lavery: What recent steps he has taken to implement the Government’s strategy on dangerous dogs; and if he will make a statement.

George Eustice: On 13 May, new amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 came into force, including higher sentences for dog attacks, an extension of the offence of a dog being dangerously out of control to all places, including private places, and a specific offence for a dog attack on an assistance dog.

Ian Lavery: In my constituency there has been a spate of vicious dangerous dog attacks, the latest on an eight-year-old girl named Grace Lucas, who suffered horrible injuries to her face. The real problems are a
	lack of education and, of course, irresponsible dog ownership. What are the Government doing to tackle those important issues?

George Eustice: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Before I became a Minister, I followed the issue closely from the Back Benches. We are doing two things. Later this year we will introduce community protection notices, which will introduce new powers, for instance to issue orders to require an owner to keep their dog on a lead, muzzle their dog or put postbox guards on their door. In extreme cases, there will be powers to insist on a dog being neutered. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about responsible dog ownership. That is why we are clear that anybody who is breeding dogs for sale should have a licence.

Stephen Mosley: I recently attended a free Dogs Trust chipping event in Blacon in my constituency, and I noticed that a lot of people were unaware that it will be compulsory to have dogs chipped in England from 2016, and Wales from 2015. What is the Minister doing to ensure that dog owners are aware that that will be compulsory from 2016?

George Eustice: That is an important point and we must ensure that dog owners are aware of those proposals. We are working with veterinary practices across the country to ensure that they know about them and are passing the information on to dog owners. We will also run a communications exercise in the press to raise the issue.

Flooding

Emma Lewell-Buck: What steps the Government have taken to respond to recent flooding.

Dan Rogerson: The Government have committed more than £560 million in support of those affected by the recent flooding. That includes an extra £270 million to repair and maintain critical defences that were damaged in the winter storms, targeted help for households through the repair and renew grant and council tax relief, and help for farmers and fishermen with funding for repairs through existing schemes. We have also provided businesses with business rate relief and a £10 million hardship fund.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I thank the Minister for his response. Despite the lessons of this winter, the Environment Agency is still set to lose hundreds of front-line staff because of DEFRA budget cuts. The agency’s chief executive has admitted that that will mean fewer resources for maintenance work. Does the Minister think it is responsible to cut the agency’s resources at a time when flood risk is increasing?

Dan Rogerson: The Secretary of State and I work closely with the Environment Agency and talk to it about its key responsibilities. I met the chief executive yesterday to discuss issues of waste crime, and so on. He was clear that front-line vital services provided by the agency are protected, and it will use the expertise of more than 10,000 staff who will be in place throughout this year to do their work. They do a fine job.

Sheryll Murray: Will my hon. Friend meet me and a representative from Cornwall council to resolve funding for areas around my constituency that were damaged by floods and in this year’s storms?

Dan Rogerson: I will meet Cornwall council tomorrow and we can discuss those issues. I do not know whether my hon. Friend or a member of her staff will be there, but I will be happy to raise any local issues with the council so that we can work through them.

Barry Gardiner: In February, the Prime Minister promised that “money is no object” in the Government’s response to the winter floods. Four months on, only £530,000 has been paid to farmers out of the supposed £10 million available in the farming recovery fund, and only £2,320 has been paid to fishermen out of the supposed £74,000 approved under the support for fishermen fund. Why is that much-needed support not getting to the people it is supposed to be helping?

Dan Rogerson: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing “supposed” about those totals, and the money is there for people to bid for—the key question is encouraging people to do so. My hon. Friends and I, as well as agricultural shows, for example, continue to emphasise that people should apply for that money, and we have simplified the system. Many applications are currently being processed, and I encourage all people eligible for those funds—whether farming, fishing or the other funds I have set out—to apply and make use of that money.

David Heath: Somerset is no longer flooded and dredging has started, which is good news. The Minister will know that one of our key asks is to have a sustainable future for maintenance, which involves setting up a Somerset rivers authority with its own revenue stream. Will the Minister update us on what progress has been made on that?

Dan Rogerson: My hon. Friend and other Somerset Members have, understandably, consistently raised that issue, and I am delighted that the strategy put in place to deal with such matters is moving forward. Someone has been appointed to take the lead on that, and the Secretary of State was in the area last week. I spoke to people at the Royal Bath and West show, and I am delighted that all the measures that people think will make a difference locally can now be taken forward.

Neil Carmichael: To underline the fact that the Government are directing funds to flood defences, will the Minister reassure me that appropriate funding will be available for maintenance and necessary new infrastructure to defend the Severn estuary?

Dan Rogerson: During this financial year the Environment Agency will invest £380,000 in maintaining flood defences and structures on the Severn estuary in Gloucestershire, and an additional £2 million will be invested to repair flood defences and structures damaged during the winter floods.

Farmers and Food Producers (New Markets)

Andrew Jones: What progress he is making on opening up new markets to British farmers and food producers.

George Eustice: In 2013 we opened 112 markets for animals and animal products, helping increase exports to non-EU markets by £179 million, to £1.35 billion. We continue to negotiate with third countries, and so far in 2014 have opened 54 new markets.

Andrew Jones: Building on that success and the growing reputation for British food and drink abroad, which I know from my own experience as an exporter in the sector, what plans do the Government have to use international sporting events, such as the Grand Depart of the Tour de France which arrives in Harrogate and Knaresborough in just three weeks, as a platform further to promote that success?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend has been an enthusiast for this event coming through his constituency. He raises an important point. We will be looking to use all opportunities we can to promote British foods. Major sporting events are an excellent way for companies to showcase their products. UK Trade & Investment Yorkshire and the Humber is bringing in a series of buyers from around the world to meet local companies at a “meet the buyer” event at the Carriageworks in Leeds on Wednesday 2 July. Many of those buyers will then travel on to the International Festival for Business in Liverpool.

Eilidh Whiteford: Our egg producers have been outraged to learn that Italy will face no financial penalties for its failure to implement the EU directive that outlaws battery cages. Our poultry farmers have invested millions of pounds to comply with the law, and, as a result, have put themselves at a competitive disadvantage in very tough international market. Why does the UK implement EU directives that other countries see fit to ignore, and what will the Government do to support our poultry sector?

George Eustice: The Government have consistently raised concerns about other member states not complying with the rules on battery cages that were introduced two years ago. It is fair to say that the Commission has taken this matter seriously and has brought some cases against some member states in the European Court of Justice. We continue to maintain pressure on the Commission, but I believe it takes the matter seriously and is taking the appropriate action.

Roger Williams: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	The Minister will be aware of the drastic reduction in farm-gate beef prices and the effect that has had on confidence in the sector. Will the Minister tell us why he thinks that reduction has taken place? What is he doing to find other markets that will encourage an increase?

George Eustice: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This is one of the key issues being raised with Ministers as we go around agricultural shows. We will
	have a summit on the matter before the summer recess. A number of factors are driving this: it is partly due to changes in global commodity prices, but it is also clear that in some cases supermarkets are taking a larger margin than before. Regarding solutions, we are keen to open new export markets for British beef so that farmers can get a better price. We are also keen to ensure that there is fair contracting between farmers and processors, and between processors and retailers.

Margaret Ritchie: The Minister will be aware of my correspondence on the export of pork to China. From his correspondence to me on 8 May, I know that inspections are to take place with the authorities in Northern Ireland, as DEFRA regulates the negotiations on behalf of the whole of the UK. Will the Minister advise the House on when those inspections will take place? What is the possibility of approval following on from that?

George Eustice: The hon. Lady has raised this issue with me a number of times and we have had meetings on it. It was also raised with me at a meeting in Northern Ireland at the beginning of this year, and we continue to raise it with the Chinese authorities. When Mr Zhi, the Chinese farming Minister, was in the UK in April we took the opportunity to raise it again. We want more meat processors to be able to export pork to China and we need clearance for their plants. We will continue to keep up the pressure.

Neil Parish: Exporting beef would improve the market here, and I know the Secretary of State has done an excellent job in China. Japan still bans our beef, right back from the days of BSE. We now have BSE completely under control, so it is time those markets were opened up again. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister do their very best to make sure that happens?

George Eustice: All I can say to my hon. Friend, who has been a champion of this industry for many years, is that we are working on many different fronts to create new markets. In the past year, we have opened markets for breeding cattle to countries such as China, for pig meat to Chile and for dairy to Cuba. In the year ahead, we will continue to look at exporting beef to Singapore and poultry meat to Papua New Guinea. The country is working incredibly hard to open as many new export markets as possible.

Pilot Badger Culls (Somerset and Gloucestershire)

David Hanson: What steps he plans to take to ensure that the monitoring of the pilot badger culls in Somerset and Gloucestershire is independently scientifically evaluated.

Owen Paterson: DEFRA is currently working closely with Natural England and the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency to develop the detail of how the monitoring will be implemented, including auditing and evaluation procedures. The results and outcome of the monitoring of this year’s culls will be made publicly available after they have been completed.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Will he ensure that, in addition to that scientific examination, he also meets with the Welsh Assembly Minister who is dealing with this matter in Wales—not too far from his own constituency—where an alternative method of vaccination is being undertaken? Will the Secretary of State agree to evaluate that as part of the process as well?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We have regular discussions with our counterparts across the border. We take information from them and they take information from us, so we are observing with interest the vaccination trial that is taking place over 1.5% of the surface area of Wales.

Angela Smith: We learned late last year that the Government would not allow scientific evaluation of the extensions of the pilot culls. Then the independent experts reported that DEFRA had failed to meet its main test for humaneness and now we learn that Ministers have no plans to scientifically evaluate the second phase of the pilot culls, which are due to take place later this year. Is there any valid reason why scientific evaluation of the culls has been abandoned—or is the Secretary of State just allergic to scientific advice?

Owen Paterson: I welcome the hon. Lady to her post and congratulate her on her new position. I would like to reassure her that it was always our intention, stated right back in 2011, that an independent panel would assess the first year of the pilot culls. We have had some helpful recommendations from the panel, which we are taking on board, but I think she is unfair and underestimates the professionalism of the skilled staff we have in Natural England and the AHVLA, who will continue to monitor the culls this year.

CAP Reform

Nick Brown: What his priorities are for further CAP reform.

Owen Paterson: I wanted to see the last round of CAP reform continue on the trajectory set by MacSharry and Fischler, so frankly, the end result was disappointing. Future reform should be driven by my departmental priorities of growing the rural economy and improving the environment, while providing value for money for taxpayers.

Nick Brown: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to Sir Ben Gill, the former president of the National Farmers Union, who led the industry through very turbulent times some 13 years ago and also played a significant role in a previous CAP reform round? In doing so, can he say whether Britain will meet the Commission’s deadline of 1 August for submitting our greening proposals arising from the latest CAP round and whether cash crops will be included in the UK submission?

Owen Paterson: I very much join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Sir Ben Gill, who only a few months ago came to see me to promote the British apple industry
	and was still playing a most constructive part. I also pay tribute to the role the right hon. Gentleman played when he was the senior Minister in charge at the end of the MacSharry period, when some serious reforms, from which we are currently benefiting, were pushed through. It is disappointing that that trajectory has not been continued. It is absolutely our intention to report to the Commission on time, on 1 August. I made a written statement earlier this week and I made further announcements on greening at the cereals conference yesterday.

Anne McIntosh: I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sir Ben Gill, a former constituent and a very good friend to the farming industry. Mindful of my historic interest in this field, which is on the register, does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that the Commons Act 2006 register is woefully inaccurate and out of date, which means that those eligible for claims will be unable to make them, and that we will not have the paperless claims the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was promised when taking evidence?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for her question. She is right to raise some of the technical issues that have been thrown up. It is very much our intention that the reform should be introduced in a manner that makes it as easy as possible for applicants to understand, and as easy as possible for the Rural Payments Agency to pay out, and we are pleased to see a significant number of applications by the digital method.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Secretary of State will be aware of the disappointment, certainly in environmental quarters, that the full 15% modulation was not taken up by the Government for England—although the record for Scotland and Northern Ireland is as open to criticism in that respect. When it comes to any future reform, does he accept that taxpayers cannot accept large amounts of their money going to subsidise wealthy farmers? That needs to be changed, so will he give that commitment today?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I remind him that we have agreed to go for a 12% modulation, and then review the position, having established what type of schemes are relevant, and possibly go on to 15%. We will spend £3.5 billion on improving the environment through our pillar 2 schemes. I am completely clear that I would like to continue the trajectory set in train by MacSharry and Fischler, whereby decisions pertaining to what crops are grown and what animals are raised should be left to the market, but there is a very real role for taxpayers’ money to be spent compensating landowners and farmers for the environmental work in respect of which there is no obvious market mechanism.

Julian Sturdy: I would like to pay tribute to Sir Ben Gill and to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does the Secretary of State agree that any further CAP reform has to focus on the simple issue of using farm
	land to produce food because we have to tackle the important issue of food security, which is looming more and more and is ever-present in our society?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is spot on. There are 1 billion people hungry in today’s world and we are heading for a further increase in population of 2 billion. We should be aware that there is no unlimited cheap, safe food beyond our shores—it was the position of the last Government that there was—so we as a Government absolutely want to see domestic food production increase. We already have a huge task: 30% of the food eaten in this country is imported, but could be produced here.

CAP (Common Land)

Laurence Robertson: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the allocation of direct payments through pillar 1 of the CAP on common land.

Owen Paterson: We published our assessment of the financial impact of changes to pillar 1 in chapter 7 of our response to the CAP reform consultation. We have held discussions with stakeholders about the future allocation of direct payments in respect of common land. The approach for the new CAP schemes, which begin in 2015, will take account of fairness, the need to minimise administrative burdens and the need to comply with the relevant European legislation.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will have gazed out on many occasions towards Cleeve common in my constituency. People are concerned that if there is a future prevention of claims for dual use, the funding will not be available to manage the common for purposes of wildlife conservation and indeed businesses. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind when he comes to take decisions on these matters?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We are aware of the problem of dual use, but it is absolutely our intention that those who have common land should be eligible for new environmental land management schemes, which we shall publish shortly.

Kerry McCarthy: Many are concerned at the Government’s stance in the CAP negotiations—opposition to proposals to cap the amount a single farmer can receive in subsidies, for example. In the interests of transparency, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for all Members to register any CAP-related payments they receive on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

Owen Paterson: I think that that question is one for the House authorities—perhaps the Leader of the House can deal with it later at business questions. I am not frightened of large businesses producing food efficiently. I refer back to what my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) said. We should wake up to the fact that there is not unlimited safe food beyond these shores. There is a huge increase in world demand
	for food, and we should concentrate on having good, efficient farming that produces food for our population and enhances the environment.

Andrew George: Nevertheless, the Government have established the principle in the benefits system of placing what I think is a reasonable cap on taxpayer-funded handouts. Does the Secretary of State agree that if that principle is okay for welfare recipients, it is also right to place a reasonable cap on taxpayer-funded handouts to people who do not actually need them?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. First, it should be put on the record that we agreed to a degressivity of 5% of £150,000, so there is a reduction, but I do not think we should be frightened of having large, successful farming businesses in order to feed this country.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Secretary of State will be aware of the dispute in Northern Ireland over the allocation of the moneys resulting from the CAP reform. Will he do all that he can to ensure that there will be no party-political or partisan allocations of those moneys, and will he conduct an assessment to encourage the Department to allocate them fairly?

Owen Paterson: One of the major changes in this round, which we did negotiate, was absolute freedom for the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom to reach their own arrangements in regard to CAP reform and the way in which it is implemented. All four regulations are a matter for local politicians in Northern Ireland to resolve.

Fish Stocks

David Amess: What recent estimate he has made of levels of UK fish stocks.

George Eustice: The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea assesses the state of EU fish stocks annually. The next round of advice for the majority of European fish stocks, including those in UK waters, will be released on 30 June, and will inform decisions on 2015 fishing quotas that will be made at the 2014 December EU Fisheries Council.

David Amess: Given that fishing is such an important part of Southend’s economy, it is very disappointing that stocks of sole, plaice, cod and herring have been depleted as a result of channel deepening via suction dredging. Will my hon. Friend please look into that, and ensure that the Thames estuary is pollution-free and full of fish again?

George Eustice: This issue was raised with me during a recent conference of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, and my hon. Friend has written to me about it as well. The chief fisheries science adviser at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has subsequently overseen an initial investigation of the issue, and has prepared a detailed report that acknowledges that there has been a decline
	in stocks recently. The cause of the decline is not clear, but some have pointed the finger at the London Gateway development. Other possible causes include the discharge of surface water that may contain contaminants. Another meeting is planned for July, when next steps will be decided on.

Alison Seabeck: Given that it is clearly in everyone’s interests for the UK fishing industry to modernise and, in so doing, to use good data to protect and grow fish stocks, why has the Minister allowed the Marine Management Organisation to relax its commitment to use a European Union grant that was specifically designed to support the sector for that purpose?

George Eustice: I do not accept that. The lion’s share of the European maritime and fisheries fund will be invested in selective net gear and used to support work relating to the discard ban.

Peter Aldous: Responsible drift netting plays an important role in the management of UK fish stocks, and has been a traditional part of fishing off the East Anglian coast for centuries. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that the European Commissioner’s proposed blanket ban on drift netting, which will destroy what is left of the Lowestoft fleet, is not introduced?

George Eustice: We are aware of the issue, and we think that the targeting of species such as herring, bass and salmon by UK drift net fisheries is a far cry from the type of drift netting with which the previous ban sought to deal in the Mediterranean. We will be negotiating for the application of a risk-based regional approach to ensure that the right fisheries are monitored and required to take the appropriate litigation action when that is necessary, without the imposition of a blanket ban on drift netting.

Flood Protection (Government Spending)

Hugh Bayley: What recent discussions his Department has had with the UK Statistics Authority on the publication of official statistics of figures on Government spending on flood protection.

Dan Rogerson: Positive discussions have been held with the UK Statistics Authority about the publication of flood protection expenditure. We are in the final stages of firming up proposals, after which we will write to the hon. Gentleman giving the details. The robustness of the figures is already assured by our strict finance processes, and we will provide additional context for the benefit of a full range of users.

Hugh Bayley: I remind the House that in February the head of the UK Statistics Authority wrote to me saying that the figures published by DEFRA on flood protection spending were unreliable, and expressing a preference for figures published in future to be quality-controlled by his department as official statistics. I think that that would do a great deal to restore public
	confidence that the Government are spending what is needed on flood protection. Can the Minister assure me that the Department will agree to do that, and will he make a public announcement before the summer recess?

Dan Rogerson: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in this matter, and that he has met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to discuss it. He will doubtless be reassured to know that we are investing more in flood defences than the last Government. However, it is right for us to ensure that those figures are in the public domain. In his letter, the chair of the UKSA said that he broadly agreed with the statistics, but that they were not currently available for his assessment and he would need to look at them. We are discussing with the UKSA what it is best to do, and, as I have said, we will write to the hon. Gentleman when the process is complete.

Trichinella in Pigs

Therese Coffey: What representations he has received on testing for trichinella in pigs.

George Eustice: First, I would like to declare an interest: my brother is the chairman of the British Lop Pig Society, and he has made representations to me about the time it takes some abattoirs to carry out the trichinella test, which we are investigating.
	The Food Standards Agency, which has responsibility for this policy area, formally consulted on the changes to trichinella testing in March 2014. Responses indicated broad support, but also that awareness of the changes is low.

Mr Speaker: We are grateful to brother Eustice.

Therese Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Outdoor or free-range pigs are very prominent in Suffolk, where the industry is important, and it feels there has been a stitch-up by the FSA with the pig marketing association. I recognise the FSA is not my hon. Friend’s ministerial responsibility, but it is very important that free-range and organic pigs are not literally the sacrificial pig to satisfy the European conditions that are being imposed.

George Eustice: I understand the point my hon. Friend is making. There had been some indication at some point that all pigs should be tested for trichinella. We have tended previously to test only boars and sows that are cull sows. However, the argument for testing only outdoor pigs as a compromise is that outdoor pigs are more susceptible to picking up this type of tapeworm.

Wild Boar (Forest of Dean)

Mark Harper: What assessment he has made of the effect of wild boar on the Forest of Dean and of proposals to contain their numbers.

Dan Rogerson: Small numbers of wild boar can benefit biodiversity by
	disturbing static ecosystems, and contribute to the local economy through wildlife tourism. However, in excessive numbers they can also damage specific wildlife sites and harm the tourism industry, as visitors can be put off by the presence of boar and the visual damage they cause. Local meetings take place every six months to consider the situation and proposals to tackle wild boar numbers.

Mark Harper: I thank the Minister for that answer. We have to manage wild boar to keep the population under control. The deputy surveyor in the Forest of Dean is doing an excellent job and has the support of the community, including the local authority, and I would be grateful if the Minister endorsed that good work here at the Dispatch Box.

Dan Rogerson: I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that I endorse the Forestry Commission’s approach, which engages with the local community he represents when considering the impacts of wild boar in the Forest of Dean and setting its own cull figures. While the Forestry Commission is neither expected nor able to control wild boar on anyone else’s land, I would expect it to work in co-operation with the other landowners and the local authority, as necessary.

Topical Questions

Julie Elliott: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Owen Paterson: The priorities of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are growing the rural economy, improving the environment, safeguarding animal health and safeguarding plant health. This week we have announced, as part of the common agricultural policy, the criteria for the implementation of the EU’s rules on greening. While the latest round of CAP reform is disappointing, we remain determined to give our farmers sufficient flexibility to be free to do what they do best—producing food—while at the same time ensuring that we do not make the same mistakes as the last Government by designing a payments system that was so complicated that we saw £600 million being taken out of the rural economy in disallowance. Over the course of the next CAP, more than £3 billion will be spent on improving the environment.

Julie Elliott: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. In March of this year in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), stated that the Elliott report would be published in the spring, but we are now into June. Will the Secretary of State enlighten us as to when we might expect the report and a statement in this House so we can discuss the issue of the protection of consumers from food fraud, as was exposed by the horsemeat incident last year?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Professor Elliott produced a very interesting interim report, and I am pleased to say some of its
	proposals have been acted on. I met him very recently and it is absolutely our intention that the report will be published soon.

Tony Baldry: The national seed collection at Kew and the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew are considered by many of us to be a national treasure. What are the Government doing to ensure the continuing vitality and viability of Kew Gardens?

Dan Rogerson: The Government of course recognise Kew’s obligations to care for the national collections under the National Heritage Act 1983. Against the backdrop of the deficit, the Department has continued to offer relative protection to Kew. Overall, the annual average of the Government’s funding of Kew over this spending review period is greater than that of the last. We continue to work with Kew as it puts in place plans to raise revenue and we continue to invest in the excellent work it does.

Maria Eagle: DEFRA has just published “Making the most of our evidence”—I have a copy here—which makes the ludicrous claim that the Department is in favour of science-based policy making. I note that the foreword is by the Under-Secretary in the other place, Lord de Mauley, not by the Secretary of State, so will the Secretary of State confirm whether he has read it?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I read documents pertaining to my job as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Maria Eagle: That is an interesting reply. Which of the unscientific policies insisted on by the Secretary of State makes the most of our evidence? Is it his denial of climate change? Is it his ineffective and inhumane badger culls? Is it his fantasy biodegradable plastic bags? Or is it his national air quality strategy, which would make air pollution worse? Does this not illustrate that in practice the Secretary of State, who appears to be allergic to science, routinely ignores evidence in favour of his own eccentric, ideological views?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Lady has had months and months to work out that splendid rhetorical blast—I get on with the day job. I was at the cereals show yesterday talking to real farmers who are producing food, and welcoming the first investment in this country by Bayer— following our agri-tech policy—bringing in wheat testing and leading on to the breeding of wheat. That is what an active Department does. [Laughter.]

Martin Vickers: Have Ministers been able to complete an assessment of the Environment Agency’s proposals to strengthen flood defences to protect the port of Immingham and the villages of New Holland and Barrow Haven, on the south bank of the Humber, following the December tidal surge? When will they be able to make an announcement?

Dan Rogerson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the area with him during the flooding. Obviously, we will take advice from the Environment Agency and all the local bodies involved when coming up with plans to protect the area better. The Department for Transport will be included in that, given all the work it will be doing around the port of Immingham.

Mr Speaker: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has recovered his composure. I was genuinely concerned that his sides might literally split.

Barry Sheerman: If the Secretary of State is so assiduous and so passionate, how come he got nothing in the Queen’s Speech on the environment—the only thing mentioned is shale gas and fracking? Has he heard the “Farming Today” programme recently, which described the common agricultural policy deal as a “greenwash” which will do nothing for wildlife in this country?

Owen Paterson: I listened to “Farming Today” yesterday and today, and I made it very clear that this is a disappointing CAP reform. The hon. Gentleman might wish to reflect that his previous leader, Mr Tony Blair, gave away a huge slug of our national rebate in return for CAP reform and totally failed to deliver. We are going to deliver £3.5 billion through our pillar 2 schemes for environmental work which he will approve of.

Henry Smith: Since May 2010, the Environment Agency has spent about £11.7 million in defending Crawley through improved flood defences, but during this wettest winter on record the area of Ifield Green was still affected. May I have assurances from the Department that it will press Crawley borough council to co-operate fully on further flood defence schemes?

Dan Rogerson: I agree that that partnership working is crucial to finding solutions in flood risk management, and I strongly encourage all parties, including Crawley borough council, to continue to work closely and to co-operate on flood risk management in the Crawley area.

Stephen Hepburn: I never thought it would be possible that in this day and age, in one of the richest countries in the world, I would see my local churches and charities going out collecting money for food banks. Will the Minister pay tribute to those kind and caring people? Is this not in stark contrast to this rotten Government, who shower gifts on the wealthy while they watch the poor go hungry?

George Eustice: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the great work that is done by the food banks. I regularly visit one in my own constituency that does very good work, and we should celebrate that. On the wider point about food prices, which the Department is responsible for looking at, it is important to note that in the year to the end of April, food price inflation was
	down to 0.5% and food prices have actually fallen in the past couple of months, so this is now significantly below average inflation in the economy.

David Ruffley: The removal of notifiable disease status for contagious equine metritis and equine viral arteritis is causing much concern in the world-class blood stock industry in this country. Is the Minister aware that the export of horses from the UK to Hong Kong, India, Qatar, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries is likely to be hit because notifiable status is a prerequisite for horses in those countries?

George Eustice: I had the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, with a delegation from the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association. I understand the points they are making. Although those two diseases have a low impact and can be prevented through the application of the industry’s codes of practice, there could be some concerns about the impact on trade. That is why I have asked officials to look at the matter closely, to reassess the impacts on the trade, and to investigate alternative ways forward, such as burden sharing with the industry. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are looking at this closely and will take his views into account.

Nia Griffith: More than 2 million households in England and Wales are spending more than 5% of their household income on water bills. Will the Secretary of State explain exactly what the plans the Government have to give Ofwat more powers or to bring in measures that will require all water companies to tackle water bills for everybody, particularly for that 5% of households?

Dan Rogerson: I thank the hon. Lady for drawing my attention to what is happening with water bills. As companies are coming up to the price review period, bills will be levelling off or dropping. It is therefore vital that we have a strong regulator, so extra powers are needed. It is a strong message from Government that we are supporting it in its work as a good independent regulator, and that will lead to better deals for consumers.

Duncan Hames: I know that the Secretary of State intends to drive a hard bargain with the insurance industry, so he will be shocked to learn that a business in Bradford-on-Avon that was devastated by the floods at Christmas has had its business rate relief deducted from the assessment of its losses by its insurer. Clearly, it is not the Government’s intention that business rate relief should be a sop to the insurance industry, so will he use his relationship with the industry to ensure that this practice ends?

Dan Rogerson: I and Ministers from other Departments hold regular round-table meetings with the insurance industry, and I will be sure to raise the issue that my hon. Friend has mentioned this morning.

David Hanson: With beef prices falling, beef farmers in my constituency are keen to ensure that the Department uses its good
	offices to increase public procurement of beef for the defence industry, national health service, schools and others. Will the Minister please look at that urgently?

George Eustice: I can confirm that Peter Bonfield is currently doing a piece of work for us on how we might improve the Government’s buying standard and have a more balanced approach to procurement so that price is not the only determinant. He is working on that and we expect to publish details of that plan later this year.

Glyn Davies: The collapse in beef prices is having a very damaging effect on the market. What steps can the Government take to ensure that where cheap imports from eastern Europe are for sale on supermarket shelves, shoppers know that they are cheap imports?

George Eustice: There is a requirement for country of origin labelling on all fresh meat. We are holding a summit later this summer to look at the problems experienced by the meat industry. It will consider those issues and how we might increase exports of beef.

Alison Seabeck: My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) highlighted the importance of science-based policy making. Will the Minister tell the House how often the Marine Management Organisation’s scientific group has met since it was set up in 2010?

George Eustice: I am afraid that I do not have that information to hand, but I will get in touch with the hon. Lady and give her that information.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Stephen Sutton

Michael Fabricant: If he will visit Lichfield cathedral to discuss the service of remembrance and celebration of the life of Stephen Sutton.

Tony Baldry: I am always happy to visit Lichfield cathedral. The whole country will have celebrated the life and achievements of Stephen Sutton. The recent service of remembrance and celebration at Lichfield cathedral demonstrates the importance of cathedrals as a focus for unity at times of local and national celebration, commemoration and mourning.

Michael Fabricant: It is a shame in this instance that the Archbishop of Canterbury is not empowered to confer sainthoods. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Adrian Dorber, the dean of Lichfield cathedral, on seizing the moment and taking advantage, in the best possible way, of the great outpouring of
	passion and grief that people in my constituency experienced over the great work and life of a 19-year-old who died of cancer?

Tony Baldry: I agree that the experience of holding a vigil at Lichfield cathedral for Stephen Sutton helped to focus national attention on the remarkable courage and exuberance with which Stephen lived his last three years of life. He managed to raise £4 million for the Teenage Cancer Trust by telling his story and through his determination to make every moment of his life count.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Imprints in Social Media

Julian Huppert: What discussions the Committee has had with the Electoral Commission on updating guidance on the use of imprints in social media.

Gary Streeter: In United Kingdom elections there is no legal requirement for imprints to be used in social media. However, the Electoral Commission’s guidance recommends as good practice that all campaign material should contain information equivalent to an imprint so that the identity of the campaigner is clear.

Julian Huppert: Last month my constituent Michael Abberton was visited by the police after a UKIP councillor complained about his tweeting a fact-check list of UKIP’s policies. That was clearly absurd, although I can see why UKIP did not want people to know its policies, and the police have apologised to my constituent. This raises concerns about the guidance, which has not been updated recently. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the commission to look at this urgently and produce more up-to-date guidance ahead of next year’s elections?

Gary Streeter: I think the guidance is clear enough. The issue is whether the Government are going to introduce as a matter of law the need for an imprint on social media campaigning material. As I understand it, that is a matter that the Government are still considering.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Chaplains in Schools and Academies

Martin Vickers: What estimate the Church Commissioners have made of the number of chaplains in schools and academies.

Tony Baldry: There are nearly 380 Anglican chaplains working in schools. A recent report by the National Society found that a growing number of schools are paying for salaried chaplains.

Martin Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that school chaplains help to further the work of the Church in encouraging the spiritual development of our young people and giving them a better understanding of the pressures pertaining to modern society?

Tony Baldry: I do agree with my hon. Friend. As Her Majesty the Queen made clear in a speech at Lambeth palace in 2012, a long part of our nation’s tradition has been for the Church of England to promote tolerance and understanding of other faiths. An increase in the number of chaplains in schools furthers the promotion of tolerance and community integration.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Electoral Roll Status

Philip Hollobone: If the commission will establish a process whereby every time a voter comes into contact with a public agency their electoral roll status is confirmed and non-registrants are encouraged to apply.

Gary Streeter: It would be for the Government, not the Electoral Commission, to establish such a process. My hon. Friend may wish to raise the issue with the Cabinet Office directly, and probably already has. Although there will undoubtedly be practical and cost implications that the Government will need to consider carefully, the commission can see the benefits of involving public agencies in encouraging electoral registration applications. The commission will discuss this further with the Cabinet Office as the transition to individual electoral registration continues.

Philip Hollobone: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am just a humble Back Bencher and my voice does not go very far in the Cabinet Office, but his considerable gravitas and that of the Electoral Commission would carry far more weight than my opinion. I welcome the Electoral Commission’s tentative endorsement of the proposal and urge it to meet the Cabinet Office urgently to see how it might be advanced.

Gary Streeter: I too am exceedingly humble but I certainly take my hon. Friend’s point. The Electoral Commission thinks there is merit in the scheme, although there are practical obstacles. For example, it would be necessary for every public servant at the point of contact with a member of the public to have access to the electoral register there and then to be able to give specific advice. The scheme is well worth considering as we all want to see as many people as possible entered on the public register.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The right hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Meriam Ibrahim

David Nuttall: What representations the Church of England has made on Meriam Ibrahim.

Andrew Stephenson: What representations the Church of England has made on Meriam Ibrahim.

Tony Baldry: The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England wholeheartedly supported the call from the Christian Muslim Forum for the death sentence against Meriam Ibrahim to be dropped. The Church of England will continue to support the Archbishop of Sudan on this issue.

David Nuttall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The plight of Meriam Ibrahim is of great concern to churches throughout the country. St Anne’s parish church, Tottington, in the diocese of Manchester, where I serve as church warden, wrote to the Sudanese embassy two weeks ago setting out our concerns. Will my right hon. Friend urge the leaders of the Church of England to do all they can to keep up the pressure to secure the freedom of this lady?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend is right, and his constituents demonstrate that this concern is shared throughout the country. I hope that other communities and individuals who feel similarly will also write to the Sudanese embassy and that parliamentary colleagues will support early-day motion 71, tabled in my name, which has support from Members in all parts of the House.

Andrew Stephenson: A number of Pendle residents have contacted me to express their concern about this case and what it means for the Christian community in Sudan. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue is that the alleged crime of apostasy is in direct conflict with fundamental human rights, as set out in the UN universal declaration of human rights?

Tony Baldry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and that point was reinforced yesterday by the Prime Minister. Article 18 of the UN universal declaration of human rights seeks to enshrine freedom of religion and the freedom to change one’s religion, whereas the alleged offence of apostasy makes it a hanging offence to change one’s religion. They are clearly incompatible. In international law, fundamental universal UN human rights must prevail.

Kerry McCarthy: The case of Meriam Ibrahim has come to particular public attention because it is so shocking in its detail, but of course she is just one of many people across the world who are being persecuted for their religious faith. What outreach work is the Church of England doing with other Christian Churches in the countries where persecution of Christians is a significant issue?

Tony Baldry: As at least two debates in this House in recent months have demonstrated, article 18 of the UN declaration of human rights seems to be an orphaned right. The Church of England and other faith groups have been working hard to ensure that the international community and the UN Human Rights Council pay proper regard and respect to article 18.

Listed Buildings (Repairs)

Helen Goodman: What estimate has been made of the cost of the backlog of repairs to the Church of England’s listed buildings.

Tony Baldry: The Church of England’s 12,500 listed churches have an estimated backlog of repairs of £60 million, and the 42 cathedrals have an estimated backlog of £87 million over the next five years to keep them open and watertight.

Helen Goodman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that response. I recently visited Lincoln cathedral and met the dean, who told me that that cathedral has a backlog of repairs of £16.5 million. The right hon. Gentleman has done well to get money out of the Treasury, but in fact Lincoln could eat up all that money. What more does he think we could do to ensure that we preserve these vital national assets?

Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady is correct: this is quite a challenge, but I think one needs to recognise that there is a number of pots of money available. There is the very welcome £20 million the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently awarded to cathedrals to keep for immediate repairs; the Heritage Lottery Fund has put aside £25 million a year for necessary repairs; the listed places of worship scheme totals £42 million a year; and of course we have to be grateful to the wider public, who raise approximately £115 million each year to spend on repairs to their parish church buildings. The hon. Lady is a Front-Bench spokesperson for her party on culture, media and sport, and I am always willing to discuss with her other ways she thinks further funds can be found.

Anne McIntosh: Thousands of small parish churches are in desperate need of urgent repairs to heating, lighting and electrical systems, as well as roof repairs. How much or what proportion of the amounts that my right hon. Friend just mentioned relate to VAT due on those repairs?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend may recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made very generous provision of, if I recall correctly, £25 million to help to offset VAT costs on church repairs, so there is no reason why churches should be deterred from carrying out repairs and restoration by concerns about VAT bills.

Financial Services

Damian Hinds: What progress the Church of England has made on support for the provision of responsible financial services.

Tony Baldry: The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Task Group has identified a number of initiatives to promote responsible credit and savings and is now implementing those initiatives across the country.

Damian Hinds: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. The archbishop’s intervention has already had a profound and welcome impact. May I encourage the commissioners to do all they can to support that
	work through the clergy credit union, the use of premises, the promotion of volunteering and financial education in Church schools?

Tony Baldry: I entirely agree that progress is being made. Credit unions are now being set up in towns and cities across the country. I refer my hon. Friend and the entire House—it is always good to see so many Members present for Church Commissioner questions—to a rap released yesterday by the Church of England entitled “We need a union on the streets”. It underscores the views of the Church of England on payday lending and highlights credit unions as a better way to borrow. It can be found at https://soundcloud.com/the-church-of-england/we-need-a-union-on-the-streets. The chorus is:
	“What we need is a union, we need a union on the streets
	Everybody hand in hand, people can’t you understand”.

Biblical Literacy (Children)

Barry Sheerman: What steps the Church of England is taking to increase biblical literacy among children.

Tony Baldry: It is important to remind the House that the Education Act 1944 made religious education a compulsory subject in schools. I do not believe it is possible in England to properly teach religious education without ensuring that children have a proper understanding of Bible narratives.

Barry Sheerman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should see it not only as religious education but as part of our heritage and citizenship in this country, and that the stories of Noah’s ark, Adam and Eve and even the nativity should be part of that citizenship education? Is he worried about the recent poll that showed the low level of such knowledge among children and their parents?

Tony Baldry: I entirely agree. It would be very difficult, for example, for an A-level student to understand the work of T. S. Eliot without any knowledge of the Bible narratives. There is a responsibility on schools to teach religious education, and one would hope and anticipate that they would teach the Bible and Bible narratives as part of that. Families do that, as, of course, do the churches through Sunday schools.

Robert Halfon: Further to those comments on biblical literacy, will my right hon. Friend welcome the Heart 4 Harlow and Harlow credit save initiative, which provide help for financial affairs, particularly beating the loan sharks? When he is next in the area, will he visit Heart 4 Harlow, the faith community and the credit save initiative to see what they are doing?

Mr Speaker: Order. I would describe that as attempted ingenuity. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to shoehorn into the last question on the Order Paper that which he would have put if he had been called on the previous question, but, because I am in a generous mood, let us hear Sir Tony.

Tony Baldry: I always welcome opportunities to visit Harlow and to support my hon. Friend, who is such an excellent constituency Member of Parliament.

HM Passport Office

Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on Her Majesty’s Passport Office.

Theresa May: Her Majesty’s Passport Office is receiving 350,000 more applications for passport applications and renewals than is normal at this time of year. This is the highest demand for 12 years. Since January, HMPO has been putting in place extra resources to try to make sure that people receive their new passports in good time, but as the House will know there are still delays in the system. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the number of straightforward passport applicants who are being dealt with outside the normal three-week waiting time is about 30,000.
	Her Majesty’s Passport Office has 250 additional staff who have been transferred from back-office roles to front-line operations, and 650 additional staff to work on its customer helpline. HMPO is operating seven days a week and couriers are delivering passports within 24 hours of them being produced. From next week, HMPO is opening new office space in Liverpool to help the new staff to work on processing passport applications.
	Despite those additional resources, it is clear that HMPO is still not able to process every application it receives within the normal three-week waiting time for straightforward cases. At the moment, the overwhelming majority of cases are dealt with within that time limit, but that is, of course, no consolation to applicants who are suffering delays and are worried about whether they will be able to go on their summer holidays. I understand their anxiety and the Government will do everything they can—while maintaining the security of the passport—to make sure people get their passports in time.
	There is no big-bang single solution so we will take a series of measures to address the pinch points and resourcing problems that HMPO faces. First, on resources, I have agreed with the Foreign Secretary that people applying to renew passports overseas for travel to the UK will be given a 12-month extension to their existing passport. Since we are talking about extending existing passports—documents in which we can have a high degree of confidence—this relieves HMPO of having to deal with some of the most complex cases without compromising security.
	Similarly, we will put in place a process so that people who are applying for passports overseas on behalf of their children can be issued with emergency travel documents for travel to the UK. Parents will still have to provide comprehensive proof that they are the parents before we will issue these documents, because we are not prepared to compromise on child protection, but again this should relieve an administrative burden on HMPO.
	These changes will allow us to free up a significant number of trained HMPO officials to concentrate on other applications. In addition, HMPO will increase the number of examiners and call handlers by a further 200 staff.
	Secondly, HMPO is addressing a series of process points to make sure that its systems are operating efficiently.
	Thirdly, where people have an urgent need to travel, HMPO has agreed to upgrade them: that is, their application will be considered in full; it will be expedited in terms of its processing, printing and delivery; and HMPO has agreed to upgrade those people free of charge.
	All these measures are designed to address the problem that is immediately at hand. In the medium to long term, the answer is not just to throw more staff at the problem but to ensure that HMPO is running as efficiently as possible and is as accountable as possible. I have therefore asked the Home Office’s permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, to conduct two reviews—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary’s statement must be heard, and preferably with courtesy. There will be plenty of opportunity for questioning, but let us hear what the Home Secretary has to say.

Theresa May: As I said, in the medium to long term the answer is not just to throw more staff at the problem but to ensure that HMPO is running as efficiently as possible and is as accountable as possible. I have therefore asked the Home Office’s permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, to conduct two reviews: first, to ensure that HMPO works as efficiently as possible, with better processes, better customer service and better outcomes; and, secondly, to consider whether HMPO’s agency status should be removed, so that it can be brought into the Home Office, reporting directly to Ministers, in line with other parts of the immigration system since the abolition of the UK Border Agency.

Yvette Cooper: This has been a sorry shambles from a sorry Department and a Home Secretary who cannot even bring herself to say that word. Government incompetence means that people are at risk of missing their holidays, their honeymoons and their business trips. Every MP has been inundated with these cases and it seems that she has not even known what was going on.
	There has been a huge turnaround in the things the Home Secretary has to say from two days ago, when we asked her the same questions. On Tuesday, she told us that the Passport Office was meeting all its targets; on Wednesday, she told us that maybe it needed more staff; and today she says that maybe it needs some changes in policy too. On Tuesday, she told us there was no backlog; on Wednesday, the Prime Minister said there was. On Tuesday, she said, “it is not true” that staff numbers have been cut; on Wednesday, her own figures showed that they have been cut by 600; and now she is having to put them back.
	On Tuesday, the Home Secretary told us the only problem was rising summer demand, but now we find out that she took over passports for foreign residents from the Foreign Office in April, even though diplomats warned that it was not working. On Tuesday, the Minister for Security and Immigration said that security was not being compromised, and now we find out that on Monday security checks on addresses and counter-signatories were dropped; and Ministers claim that they did not have a clue what was going on. Well, that much is certainly true.
	Can the Home Secretary tell us now how bad the situation is, not only for the straightforward cases but for all the other cases, and what does she mean by “straightforward” cases anyway? How long will it take to get the system back to normal? When all her changes are in place, what can families across Britain expect? When did she first know there was a problem? MPs have been warning about this issue for ages. Why did she not know that those security checks were being dropped? Surely she has spent the past week asking for details about everything that has been going on. Or perhaps she has not, because the truth is that she did not know what was going on. She has come to this late. She has not had her eye on the ball. She has been distracted by other things.
	It is really unfair on people who have saved up everything for their holiday, only to see it wrecked by the Home Secretary’s incompetence. Will she now apologise to those facing ruined holidays, business trips or trips back to Britain? Will she get a grip on her Department and sort it out?

Theresa May: The shadow Home Secretary has raised a number of issues. The Passport Office started to receive increased numbers of applications not just in recent weeks, but from the beginning of the year, so it took action to increase the number of staff available to deal with them. From January to May, over 97% of applicants in straightforward cases received their passport within three weeks, and over 99% received them within four weeks, but of course that means there were applicants who did not receive their passport within the normal expected time. That is why the Passport Office has been increasing the number of staff throughout this period and will continue to do so, as I have indicated.
	The shadow Home Secretary asked about the difference between straightforward and more complex cases. A case is straightforward when all the information is there and the application form has been properly filled in, signed and so forth. In those cases it is possible to deal with a straightforward renewal very quickly. [Interruption.] The problem comes when the right information is not there or the correct forms have not been sent in—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Bryant, we cannot have a running commentary throughout the Home Secretary’s response. Colleagues will have plenty of opportunity to question the right hon. Lady, but her remarks must be heard with a modicum of courtesy.

Theresa May: A case ceases to be straightforward if it is necessary for the Passport Office to go back to the individual to request other documents, which of course delays the process. We are looking at part of the system to ensure that that is being done as efficiently as possible.
	The shadow Home Secretary asked about taking over the process of passport applications from British nationals overseas. Before March this year that was done by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at processing centres worldwide. The change was made to provide better value for the fee-payer and greater consistency in how overseas passport applications are assessed, and to use our expertise to better detect and prevent fraud. The checks needed for applications from overseas can take longer than those for applications in the UK. Security is
	our priority and we will not issue a passport until the necessary checks have been completed. However, as I said in my statement, for those applying for a renewal from overseas, where we can have confidence in the documents that they have already had and the process they have been through, we will be offering an extension of 12 months.
	Finally, the shadow Home Secretary raised the issue of staff numbers, as did other Members earlier this week. Here are the figures: in March 2012 the Passport Office had 3,104 members of staff—[Interruption.] Opposition Members talk about 2010, so I will make one simple point: when we took office there were staff in HM Passport Office who had been brought in to deal with the new identity card. This Government scrapped the identity card. Over the past two years the number of staff in the Passport Office has increased from 3,104 to 3,445. That is the answer. People might say that this is about reduced staff numbers, but actually staff numbers have been going up over the past two years.

Mark Harper: The Home Secretary has set out clearly the action that she is taking to deal with the problem. Those listening outside this Chamber will welcome the grip that she is showing and will see the nonsense that we have heard from Labour for what it is—a cheap attempt to make up for their poor show on Monday.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and I recognise the points he made about the attempts from the Opposition. Outside the political arena that is the House of Commons, we should never forget that this is about people who are applying for their passports, planning holidays and so forth. That is why the Passport Office has been taking the action it has taken, and why it is continuing to increase the number of staff to ensure that it can meet the current demand which, as I said, is the highest for 12 years.

Gerald Kaufman: Is the Home Secretary aware that in the past hour I have received an e-mail from a constituent who tells me that her husband—[Interruption.] Here it is. My constituent tells me that her husband received British citizenship in March and immediately applied for a British passport; that the Home Office totally bungled the entire procedure, but after repeated calls and approaches from her, promised the passport at the beginning of last week; that the passport has not been received; that they had booked a visit abroad to her family and have paid the airfares; and that because of the fact that her husband has not got the British passport and the Passport Office will not return to him his original passport, which is still valid, they will have to cancel the flights and lose a great deal of money. They are in a total mess because of the Home Secretary’s failure to administer and her arrogant refusal to deal with individual cases. What is she going to do to put this right?

Theresa May: No, I was not aware of the e-mail that the right hon. Gentleman received from his constituent, but I am aware of it now. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be taking that matter up with Ministers and the Passport Office. I have been clear that I recognise that there are people who are having difficulties getting access to passport renewals or new passport applications.
	The current level of applications is higher than we have seen for 12 years. Action is being taken and will continue to be taken by the Passport Office to try to ensure that it can deliver on the normal rates that people expect. I am sure that as an experienced Member of the House the right hon. Gentleman will be using every opportunity that he has—

Brian H Donohoe: He has just done so.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe). The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) has used one of those opportunities, but there are other opportunities to bring those details to the attention of the Passport Office and to Ministers so that that case can be looked into.

Julian Huppert: Many people are grateful to have heard the announcement from the Home Secretary about the free upgrade process for people who need their passport urgently. Can she clarify exactly what that process entails and explain what counts as urgent? Many people need that reassurance.

Theresa May: It will be for people to bring to the attention of the Passport Office that they have an urgent need to travel. We intend to make it clear on the website so that people can go online and see that in detail and see what the process is. In that way, they will be absolutely clear about what they need to do and how they qualify.

Jessica Morden: When the Government tried to shut Newport passport office a few years ago, staff and unions warned at the time that cuts would impact on the service, and they have been proved right. It would be good if the Home Secretary could at least acknowledge that putting the full processing function back into Newport, along with the jobs that we lost, would be a start. Will she also acknowledge that it is not only the customers who are suffering badly at present? The situation is putting stress on the staff, such as those in the Newport office, who are under immense pressure because of this Government’s incompetence.

Theresa May: At the time those decisions were taken, the point was raised in the House and Ministers responded to it. It is absolutely right, from the Passport Office’s point of view, that it should look at how it can provide services as efficiently as possible. I want to make sure that in going ahead, we review how it is providing those processes and how it is operating its system so that we make sure that customers are getting the best possible service. But I return to the point that we have seen demand levels—applications for passports—higher than they have been for 12 years. Action has been taken and is continuing to be taken to ensure that we can deal with those applications.

Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend spell out to us in the Chamber today what the criteria are for an urgent need to travel, so that everybody knows? Will she make arrangements to ensure
	that constituents who wish to express concerns can do so directly to their MPs, and that MPs can have a special hotline to communicate with the Passport Office?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend’s point about the qualification for urgent travel was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and as I said to him earlier, the Passport Office will of course put full details on its website. Either I or the Minister for Security and Immigration will write urgently to Members of Parliament with the full details, so that every Member of Parliament is aware and can advise their constituents fully.

Meg Hillier: The Home Secretary has come to the House today to announce a series of desperate measures in the Passport Service—extending passports, reducing security checks, fast-tracking some applications and adding in many more bureaucratic hurdles to getting a passport. Yet, as I know, Ministers receive weekly updates about the flow of applications and turnaround. It is beyond belief and not credible that Ministers were not aware of this problem before it was raised in the House. When will she and her Ministers take responsibility for this? As a former Minister, I know that I discussed ebbs and flows every time that I met officials in the Passport Service, and if there was a problem, I would be on to them about it. What is she doing to make sure that this never happens again?

Theresa May: First, I and the Minister for Security and Immigration have said in the House and I have said elsewhere that for some months—since the beginning of the year—it has been clear that the number of applications was increasing. The flow has gone up, has steadied, and has gone up and down. Over that period, the Passport Office has taken action by increasing the number of staff and by increasing the hours during which considerations are done. It is now operating seven days a week from 7 am to midnight, and it is looking at increasing those hours further. The hon. Lady said that we have relaxed the security, but there was no relaxation of security, as I made clear in my announcement to day.
	Finally, the hon. Lady talks about a series of measures being taken. Yes, a series of measures are being taken. As I made clear in my statement, there is no single thing that will suddenly change the way in which the Passport Office is able to deal with these applications. What is necessary is not a grand political gesture, but the slow, careful consideration that we have been giving and that will now lead to urgent action by the Passport Office in increasing the number of staff.

Sarah Newton: As part of the very welcome review announced today, will my right hon. Friend consider an idea put to me by the manager of the Crown post office in Truro, which is that Crown post offices’ new capabilities in identity verification could be used in speeding up and further localising the application process for the renewal of passports?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the proposal from the Crown post office in Truro. I will ensure that it is fed into the review and given due consideration.

Bob Ainsworth: The Home Secretary is now announcing a series of measures; the problem has been ongoing and apparent not for a couple of weeks, but for months. Members of Parliament—myself and everyone else—have been inundated by constituents in panic and distress. Why has it taken so long for this problem to be recognised and for measures to be taken to address this issue?

Theresa May: The increase in demand was recognised earlier this year. HM Passport Office put steps in place to deal with that increased demand. The increased demand continued and, as a result, further steps were put in place. Those steps included increasing the number of staff available to deal with the applications, increasing the number of staff on the telephone helpline, extending the hours of operation of HM Passport Office and working with couriers to ensure that printed passports were delivered within a very short space of time once they were issued. Over time, as the demand has increased, steps have been taken. It is clear that further steps need to be taken, and they are being taken.

Caroline Dinenage: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the focus for all MPs at this difficult time of unprecedented demand should be assisting their constituents, not engaging in cheap, smug, self-satisfied, party political point scoring?

Theresa May: I am sure that every Member wants to help the constituents who have come to them with concerns, and they should indeed be doing that. We have increased the number of people who are available through the general helpline to individuals who wish to make inquiries about their passports, as I said, by some 650 members of staff. Previously, the figure was 350. Of course, all Members of Parliament recognise that people get in touch with their MPs about this issue because they have a genuine concern about what is happening to their passports. That is why we are addressing the issue and why the Passport Office has been addressing it over the past weeks.

David Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that none of her feeble excuses today can explain away the sheer incompetence and shambles that have again occurred on her watch?

Theresa May: I fear that I will repeat what I have been saying, which is that demand is at its highest level for 12 years and the Passport Office has taken action over recent weeks to meet that demand. There is still an issue with demand. We recognise the concerns that individuals who are applying for new passports or renewals have about timing. That is why further action is being taken.

Andrew Selous: Some of the most worrying cases that I have dealt with have involved British nationals overseas, so I welcome in particular the 12-month extension. The granting of emergency travel documents for the children of British nationals who are abroad is also extremely helpful and welcome.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right that a number of the more complex and worrying cases have come from those who are applying from
	overseas. That is why we are putting those measures in place. As I said in relation to the emergency travel documents, parents will still have to show comprehensive proof that the child is theirs, because child protection must, of course, be at the forefront of our minds.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Home Secretary aware that it was nothing short of idiotic to take on the responsibility for processing passport applications from overseas at the very time when her Department was expecting the pre-summer surge, which happens every year? There is a bit more of a surge this year, but it is more or less in line with the extra people that she has. That was plainly just an idiotic management decision.
	More importantly, will the Home Secretary explain to the House why there was not a single Government Back Bencher at the Adjournment debate on this issue to represent people’s interests, despite her plug for the debate earlier that day? The Minister for Security and Immigration, who is responsible for the Passport Office, reassured the House on Tuesday that
	“We have not compromised on our checks, and will not do so.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 526.]
	How was it possible for him to give that reassurance when a letter had gone out the previous day doing precisely that? Why does she not—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just say before the Home Secretary responds that there is a great deal of interest, which I am keen to accommodate, at least in part? It would help if contributions were brief. We have the business question to follow and the last day of the Queen’s Speech debate is exceptionally heavily subscribed. People will lose out, and they will lose out all the more if there is not economy.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will attempt to be brief in my response.
	As has been made clear publicly, Ministers were not aware of the document to which the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) refers, and they asked for it to be withdrawn immediately.

Ben Wallace: May I say how much I appreciate my right hon. Friend taking pragmatic steps to deal with the situation, especially with the 12-month extension? If it gets worse, will she perhaps consider extending that to UK citizens in this country as a short-term measure? Does she agree that the Passport Office had to spend £257 million after being diverted on to an identity card scheme, and that if it had been able to spend that money on its core offering, perhaps this would not have happened?

Theresa May: I have already referred, of course, to the identity card scheme.
	My hon. Friend talks about the possibility of the extension to passports being brought in domestically as well as in overseas cases. We did examine that possibility, and it was what the Labour Government did when they had queues at passport offices back in 1999. To introduce that now would have meant setting up new centres and processes, which could have disrupted the work that the
	Passport Office is already doing. That is why I believe it is better to concentrate on dealing with the applications that are being made.

Alison McGovern: Speaking purely personally, I would prefer it if we did not talk about throwing Government staff around.
	The families who have come to me to raise their cases have mainly been trying to get a child’s first passport. They have pointed out to me that the Government’s website said that they would get their passport within three weeks, which was clearly a mistake. I know of one family who have definitely missed their holiday. What can be done to ensure that families in my constituency get proper information?

Theresa May: The website has always indicated to people what the normal expected period for a straightforward application is. As I indicated earlier, if there is a problem with the application, it can take longer, but we are ensuring that the information on the website is as clear as possible to people. I have also asked for it to be ensured that it is absolutely clear what documents are required, because there may be issues to do with the type of birth certificate that is submitted, which can lead to problems for families.

Mark Pawsey: A constituent contacted me on 25 April calling for a passport for his mother to go on a family holiday, and he received the passport by 30 April and sent my office a note saying:
	“Thank you for your help—it saved our holiday.”
	Another constituent contacted me on 3 June and received their passport yesterday, and they have sent me a note saying:
	“Thank you for your effort. I shall look forward to a well-earned holiday.”
	Does that not show that when urgent cases have been brought to the Passport Office’s attention, passports have been provided on time?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The point is that, as I have indicated, the vast majority of straightforward passport applications are still being dealt with within the time scales that people normally expect, and we should recognise that tens of thousands of people are having their passports sent to them and their applications dealt with to the normally expected timetable. When urgent cases are brought to the Passport Office’s attention, it is doing everything it can to deal with them expeditiously.

Thomas Docherty: What would the Home Secretary like to say to my constituent Elizabeth Dey, who after more than four weeks of waiting may well miss her honeymoon in 10 days’ time?

Theresa May: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets in touch with the Passport Office—

Thomas Docherty: I have done that already.

Theresa May: Then if the hon. Gentleman would like to give the details to the Minister for Security and Immigration, we will ensure that the case is pursued.

Charlie Elphicke: My constituents in Dover and Deal are deeply concerned about border security, and whatever pressure the Home Secretary may be put under by a Labour party that has a great tradition of allowing anyone to just wander in, will she ensure that the safety and security of our borders and passports are not compromised?

Theresa May: That is absolutely clear. That is the attitude that we have taken throughout the immigration system. For the first time ever, we have an operating mandate for our Border Force and our border security, and as I said earlier in response to the shadow Home Secretary, one of the reasons for bringing overseas passport applications into HMPO was to have greater consistency in how they are assessed and enable expertise to be used in better detecting fraud.

George Mudie: We all have constituents who have made straightforward applications within Home Office guidelines and who a day or two before they flew were forced to pay £55 for an upgrade to get their passports. What consideration is being given to repay that money?

Theresa May: I recognise that some people have paid sums of money to ensure that their passport application was upgraded, and I have indicated that for urgent travel in the future we will be doing that free of charge. I recognise that people have had those difficulties, and that there are still people with applications in the system that are concerning them. That is why we have taken the steps outlined today.

John Leech: Like other Members, I have had numerous cases of people who were waiting for their passports. Fortunately, they have all been sorted, although at very short notice in some cases. It is clear that cases are dealt with differently when people go to their MPs. How can we ensure that people who do not go to their MPs receive the same service and have their complaints dealt with in the same way as though they had gone to their MP?

Theresa May: MPs take up issues in many areas of activity, and they are dealt with perhaps more expeditiously than they would be normally. That is part of the issues that we deal with in our constituency surgeries and so forth. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: we must ensure that information and advice is provided and that when people complain and apply to the Passport Office and raise an issue about their passport, they are dealt with properly and quickly and get the proper information. That is why more staff have been brought in to answer general inquiries, which are often from people chasing the progress of their passport. The Passport Office is making every effort to ensure that people get the service they require, so that it is not necessary for people to go to their MPs or feel that that is the only way they can get that service.

Pete Wishart: The Home Secretary will be more than aware that the Scottish summer school holidays come around a lot quicker than in England. This fiasco therefore has a more immediate impact on my constituents in Scotland, yet the Home Office has shed 150 processing staff in the
	Glasgow office, adding to the crisis. Will the Home Secretary acknowledge the particular difficulty in Scotland, and will she promise all those Scots who want to go on their summer holidays that they will get their passports?

Theresa May: As I have indicated, steps are being taken to address the demand we are seeing and increase the ability to process the applications. That is against the background of a real recognition that many people are applying to renew their passport or for new passports at this time because they want to go on holiday in the summer. We recognise that and are making every effort to address the issue.

Steve Brine: May I, like others, welcome the changes for children who need to travel to the UK? I have constituents with a very poorly child overseas who may need to get back to London quickly for treatment, and they will welcome today’s announcements. Can the Home Secretary give the House more information? She mentioned urgent travel documents. Through what route can they be obtained, to save constituents such as mine from having to go all around the system?

Theresa May: The process for getting emergency travel documents would be to apply to the British embassy or high commission overseas, just as they would have done for their initial passport application.

Ann Clwyd: My constituent was hoping to go on holiday in two weeks’ time. She applied in February this year for passports for three children. She called the Passport Office on 8 May to find out the progress of the application, and was told by a member of staff that they would call back. No call was received. She called again on 18 May and was told by staff that they would look into it. No call was received. She contacted the Passport Office again on 29 May, and was told by staff that her daughter’s birth certificate had been mislaid. On 30 May she sent another birth certificate by recorded delivery, and on 3 June she was told that the application was with the examination team. She will be going on holiday in just two weeks. My office has contacted the MPs hotline on several occasions, but after a bit it just goes dead. We have continued to ring, but not once has anyone answered the phone.

Theresa May: I accept that the service the right hon. Lady and her constituent received is not good enough. If she makes the details available, we will ensure that HMPO chases up that particular case. As I said earlier, more staff are being put on the general inquiries hotline to try to ensure that people do not receive the same response that she and her constituent received when they tried to get information—that was not good enough.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that what hard-working constituents in Harlow are really concerned about is the fact that this Government cut the cost of passports for families saving for their holidays, whereas the previous Government used them as a stealth tax?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of that. In all the debates on the Passport Office, people have lost sight of the fact that the Government
	were able to cut the cost of passports. That will have been welcomed by hard-working people in Harlow and across the country.

John McDonnell: Part of the anger and frustration is that these problems were not just predictable—they were predicted. They were predicted by the front-line staff. Will the Home Secretary review the correspondence of the past two years, at least, from Public and Commercial Services Union front-line staff representatives, who wrote consistently that
	“the closure of 22 interview offices and one application processing centre and the sacking of 315 staff…around one in 10 of the workforce…has been a major factor in creating this current crisis.”?
	She has set up a review. It is best to talk to the front-line staff doing the job. Will she meet a delegation of PCS representatives from the front line to talk about how we can go forward urgently and in the long term?

Theresa May: The point of the review, as the hon. Gentleman understands, is to see whether the processes are the best possible we can have in place. As part of that review, I would certainly expect information to be taken from front-line staff, not just from union representatives in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests. I will certainly look at the possibility, which happens anyway, of Ministers—either myself or the Immigration Minister—meeting front-line staff. That is what I think is important: to meet front-line staff. The views of a variety of people will be taken in the review, but I return to a point I made earlier and to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer: the very high level of demand experienced by the Passport Office. It has already taken steps to deal with that.

Damian Hinds: I welcome this balanced set of measures from the Home Secretary. Will she confirm that everything possible is being done to increase short-term staffing capacity, while being consistent with the need to uphold quality assurance and security?

Theresa May: That is absolutely right. It is not the case that one can simply take somebody with no experience of passport business and make them examine passport applications. We have security checks for passport applications and we need people who are trained to be able to do that. Every effort is being made to ensure we can bring more staff into the front line as quickly as possible, commensurate with ensuring they have the necessary level of training to be able to do that securely.

Paul Flynn: Two years ago, the lives of 150 loyal and efficient workers in my constituency were devastated by a closure that the Government described as creating a smaller but more efficient passport agency. Others predicted today’s chaos. Will the Home Secretary find it in herself to have the common sense and the humility to apologise for the ineptocracy the Government have created?

Theresa May: Yes, there have been changes in the way the Passport Office operates. The Passport Office has been operating efficiently and effectively in dealing with people’s applications since those changes were made. We now have a period of higher demand than we have seen for
	12 years. That high demand is now being addressed by a number of steps that have been taken, but we will look at how the Passport Office should operate more efficiently in the future to ensure that it offers the best possible service.

Henry Smith: I would like to thank HMPO staff for helping me to assist my constituents—the handful who have come to me. Interestingly, one of them said that the reason they applied for a passport was that, for the first time since 2008, they could afford to go on a foreign holiday. Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that part of the increased demand is down to a better economic environment?

Theresa May: In the current, improved economic environment, I am pleased that people feel able to go on holiday when they have perhaps been unable to do so previously. However, I am also conscious that there will be people who have sent in their renewal applications who are concerned about whether they will be able to do exactly what my hon. Friend says his constituents want to do. That is why I have put forward these measures, which HMPO will be putting in place, in addition to those it has already put in place.

Bridget Phillipson: Not a day goes by without more constituents coming forward because of delays, such as the constituent who contacted me first thing this morning, having applied for their passport over six weeks ago. Time is running out. Calls to the Passport Office go unreturned and constituents of mine face the prospect of losing out on their holidays, which they worked hard to pay for. What would the Home Secretary say to my constituent, who faces the prospect of losing hundreds of pounds because of this incompetence?

Theresa May: What I would say to the hon. Lady—as I have said to a number of others in relation to their constituency cases—is that the Passport Office will make every effort to ensure that the applications of those who have a requirement are met quickly and dealt with properly. As I indicated earlier, straightforward cases are normally dealt with within three weeks. If extra information is required or if someone is making a first-time application and requires an interview, that can take extra time. The straightforward cases are normally dealt with within three weeks, but every effort will be made to deal with the case the hon. Lady raises, as I am sure she is trying to ensure.

Tony Baldry: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the shadow Home Secretary made not a single constructive suggestion to deal with the present situation and that the collective chunter of Labour Back Benchers on this issue has simply been a cry to throw more public money at the problem, as it is whenever there is an issue? When the permanent secretary at the Home Office carries out the review, will he also consider why applications this year increased by some 300,000 on last year? There has clearly been an unprecedented increase in demand, which no one could have foreseen, but someone needs to give some consideration to how it came about.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course we need to look at that, which is part of the process of looking at HMPO’s work going forward, to see whether patterns and numbers are changing and to ensure that appropriate resource is available to deal with that. I note, as he said, that it is the Government who have been looking at this issue carefully, and we are putting in place measures intended to deal with it.

Brian H Donohoe: I raised this question in the House earlier this week and got answers that were not satisfactory to me or, more particularly, my constituents, given that the hotline is still not working. Will the Home Secretary take the decision today to reopen the office in Glasgow, so that passports can be issued to my constituents without them having to travel down to Durham or over to Belfast? It seems ridiculous that it is necessary to do that, rather than taking the decision, which she could take today, to reopen the Glasgow office to the public.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the MPs’ hotline in the House earlier in the week. My hon. Friend the Immigration Minister said that if he gave him the details, he would pursue the case. I am conscious of the concerns that a number of Members have raised about the MPs’ hotline, which is an issue we will pursue.

Jason McCartney: I welcome the extra staff working extra hours to tackle the exceptional demand. Many of the constituents contacting me are parents applying for first-time passports for children or renewals for younger children. Will the Home Secretary clarify the time scales that those parents should expect for their passport applications?

Theresa May: As I said, the straightforward applications for a straightforward renewal of the passport are normally expected to be within three weeks, but some are going beyond that. Where it is a first-time application and an interview is required, it can take longer. I would expect a child’s first-time application to be within normal times, but if someone does not present the absolutely correct documentation, the application will take longer, which sometimes happens. As I indicated earlier, either the Immigration Minister or I will ensure that we write urgently to MPs to set out the measures taken and relevant details such as when people will be able to demonstrate an urgent need to travel in order to be upgraded.

Chris Bryant: The Home Secretary’s definition of “straightforward” has changed five times in the course of the past hour—and it has just changed again. That matters because the number of delayed applications that the Prime Minister came up with yesterday depended on straightforward applications, so the real figure is far higher than 30,000, is it not? Will the Home Secretary apologise to my constituents—foster parents who applied for a passport for their foster child, Corry? Weeks later, they received a phone call from the Passport Office, saying that the passport was on its way, so they booked their holiday. Six weeks after that, however, they had still not received the passport, so Corry, the foster child, was unable to go on holiday with his parents. Will the Home Secretary apologise to them?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the definition of straightforward cases has changed, but it has not. I have been very clear that straightforward renewal of passports is normally expected to be dealt with within three weeks. That is on the Passport Office’s website and it is what I have said today. I recognise that there have been some very difficult cases, such as the one that the hon. Gentleman describes. I was listening carefully and I think he mentioned the problem of the parents being told that the passport had been dispatched, but not then receiving it. I would be grateful if he would care to provide the details, as I may have misunderstood the case.

Stephen Mosley: At Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition claimed that tens of thousands of people were having their holidays cancelled because of passport delays. Meanwhile, the Association of British Travel Agents has said that it is seeing no increase in holiday cancellations on account of passport delays. Who should we believe—the Leader of the Opposition or ABTA?

Theresa May: I am tempted to say that there are those who have the figures at hand and know what they are, and there are those who make claims about them in this House.

Luciana Berger: The gov.uk website still says that it should take three weeks to get the passport, so would the Home Secretary care to correct it? Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), will she please tell us whether my constituents who had to pay an extra £55 on top of the £72.50 they paid to get their “straightforward” renewal applications processed in order to go on holiday in the first place—they got the passport just in the nick of time—can now expect a refund?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady asks me to change the advice on the website. We are, of course, looking at the advice on the website, as is the Passport Office, to ensure that it is as clear as possible. The point is, though, that the vast majority of straightforward applications are being dealt with within the normal three-week period.

Philip Hollobone: This is a serious issue, and we all agree that it is not satisfactory. In Kettering, however, I have had three complaints and I dealt with them all myself. As for the MPs’ hotline, the phone was picked up every time and each case was solved within the day to the satisfaction of the affected constituents.

Theresa May: I am grateful to those Members who have indicated that the cases they took up have been dealt with and that people have received their passports. Staff at the Passport Office are working very hard to deal with the cases they are seeing. As we have just heard, they are responding to the cases that MPs are raising—and I think we should not forget that.

Tom Clarke: This is the biggest problem that my constituency office has been presented with since the bedroom tax. My staff have often worked overtime to deal with cases such as those of the lady who phoned early one afternoon
	to say that her friend was leaving Glasgow airport at six o’clock the next morning and did not have a passport, and the man who, two months after sending off his application, received a letter saying that it had not been signed. My staff would want me to pay tribute to the—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman is an extremely senior Member and I treat him with the utmost courtesy, but we are very pressed for time. What we need is a one-sentence, short question.

Tom Clarke: I am happy to oblige, Mr Speaker. Will the Home Secretary address herself to the question put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and personally meet front-line staff and union representatives who warned that this was going to happen?

Theresa May: As I thought I had made clear to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), we do meet front-line staff and will do so again in order to discuss this issue. For the purposes of the review, representations will be received from a number of people, both those involved in the passport service and those who, I am sure, have experienced similar kinds of customer service. The review is necessary to ensure that we are doing things in the best possible way in order to give the best possible service to customers, and front-line staff will of course be met during that process.

Seema Malhotra: Many of my constituents have contacted me about this problem, including three British citizens who applied for passports for children born abroad. One has waited for six months, another for five months, and a third for three months. One child’s school admission has been delayed, another’s health treatment has been delayed, and in the third case flights were booked and then cancelled at a cost of £1,600. Will the Home Secretary tell us when her new measures may come into force, whether my constituents are likely to benefit from them, and whether there is any consistency in what the Home Office is saying? We have been told that the suggested time lines are intended as guidance, but the Home Secretary is now talking of advice that is on the website.

Theresa May: The time that it takes to process an application from overseas will vary according to the complexity of the case that is before the Passport Office. Obviously I cannot comment on the individual cases raised by the hon. Lady because I do not know the details, but, as I have said, I will write to Members explaining clearly when it will be possible to apply for the emergency travel documents—I referred to part of that process in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)—so that they understand the new arrangements and can advise their constituents accordingly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint Members who are still rising, but I know they will understand that I must have some regard to the overall level of demand for other parts of today’s schedule, and that we must now move on. I am sure that there will be further opportunities to explore these issues.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week will be as follows.
	Monday 16 June—I expect my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to update the House following the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict. That will be followed by the conclusion of the remaining stages of the Consumer Rights Bill, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to special educational needs.
	Tuesday 17 June—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill.
	Wednesday 18 June—Opposition Day [1st allotted day]. There will be debates on Opposition motions, including a debate on energy prices.
	Thursday 19 June—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism, followed by a general debate on the UK’s relationship with Africa, followed by a general debate on defence spending. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee in the last Session.
	Friday 20 June—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 23 June will include the following:
	Monday 23 June—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Deregulation Bill.
	Tuesday 24 June—Remaining stages of the Wales Bill.
	Wednesday 25 June—Opposition Day [2nd allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 26 June—General debate on the programme of commemoration for the first world war.
	Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business, and may I also take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on her unopposed re-election as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee? She is doing such a good job that no one even thought she should be replaced. We could not say the same about many Government Ministers.
	I would also like to wish the England football team good luck in their first World cup game on Saturday. We are all convinced that they are going to have a great tournament and we will all be watching their every move, as usual, from behind the sofa.
	I note from the Leader of the House’s comments that the Foreign Secretary is due to give us a statement on his conference on sexual violence, which is very welcome, on Monday, but we all watched in horror as militant extremists overran swathes of north-western and central Iraq yesterday, and they are now reported to be within 50 miles of Baghdad. Over half a million people have had to flee, and the country has been forced to declare a state of emergency. Will the Leader of the House arrange
	for the Foreign Secretary to keep the House fully informed as this deeply worrying situation develops?
	In future business there is an eerie silence on the recall Bill, and the Deputy Prime Minister managed, in true Lib Dem fashion, to disagree with his own draft Bill only last week. Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Government’s latest version of the recall Bill will actually be published?
	A report from the National Audit Office has revealed that the Government’s armed forces restructure is in chaos. The plans are already six years behind schedule, and instead of making savings of nearly £11 billion, it looks like these changes are going to cost the public purse more. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has rightly described the additional cost as scandalous. The changes risk exposing a dangerous capability gap in the nation’s defences, so will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Defence Secretary so he can explain these failings in his Department?
	As the passport agency descended into chaos, the Government first tried denial, then played the blame game, and now have been forced into a series of emergency measures. The head of the agency denied that there was a backlog only on Monday; the Home Secretary was boasting that it was meeting its service targets on Tuesday; by Wednesday the Prime Minister was forced to admit that it has been trying to clear the backlog for weeks; and overnight we found out that Ministers were not even aware that vital security checks have been scaled back to speed up the process. Even if the Home Secretary was unaware, the Leader of the House acknowledged the problem last week and promised a written ministerial statement. Seven days later, we have not had one, and my colleague the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has had no substantive reply to his named day questions on this subject. Will the Leader of the House explain why we have had to drag the Home Secretary kicking and screaming to the Chamber today to account for this fiasco? Is the non-appearance of the promised statement a further sign of the Home Secretary’s incompetence, or has she fallen out with the Leader of the House too?
	After yet another weekly session where the Prime Minister focused on the rhetoric and ignored the reality, I have decided that we need a regular “mind the gap” watch to highlight the Government’s failure to live up to their PR hype. This week alone we have had the news that the housing benefits bill is set to soar by yet another £1 billion despite the Government promising to make work pay and provide enough affordable homes, food bank use is up by 54% last year alone despite the Government saying they would face up to the cost of living crisis, and, despite matching our promise to end child poverty by 2020, this week a report from their own Child Poverty Commission said that was not remotely “realistic”.
	The Government’s Whitehall farce continues to run and run. The Conservatives are blaming their multiple failures on the civil service, their special advisers, the last Labour Government, and now they are even trying to blame Oxfam. The Prime Minister wanted to reshuffle his deck, but has now realised that he has got a pack of jokers. The Liberal Democrat headquarters managed to tweet:
	“we didn’t go into govt because it was the right thing to do, we went into govt because it was the right thing to do”.
	[Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] There is not a single Liberal Democrat Member here; they are all at a lesson on how to tweet properly. Only the Liberal Democrats could change their minds halfway through a tweet. After their disastrous election results, the Deputy Prime Minister has finally had some good news this week. They have finally topped a ballot—but it was only the ballot for private Members’ Bills. Meanwhile, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has declared that the Liberal Democrats could be the biggest party in 2025, and William Hill has pulled its sponsorship from the Liberal Democrats’ closest rivals, the Monster Raving Loony party. This clearly demonstrates that there is only one joke party left in British politics.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the business statement. I echo her congratulations to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), whose re-election is a testament to her chairmanship of the Backbench Business Committee and to the work of the Committee as a whole. It has brought forward some important debates and given Back Benchers a greatly enhanced voice. Surveys in recent years have shown that the public now believe that the House debates issues of relevance to them on a more regular and timely basis.
	I also echo the shadow Leader of the House’s good wishes to the England team. It will be a late night on Saturday, but at least it will be followed by Sunday morning. I am looking forward to the England team scoring many goals and kissing the badge, as they say. I am told that the Leader of the Opposition is being invited to do that with the trade unions in Nottingham at the moment. It seems a strange idea, but it tells us something about where the trade unions think the interests of the Labour party lie, in contrast to the coalition, which knows that it serves in the national interest.
	The hon. Lady asked about a statement on Monday. I have announced that the Foreign Secretary will be in the House on that day to make a statement, and we will of course take opportunities to update the House on the very concerning situation in Iraq. The threat presented by the so-called Islamic State for Iraq and the Levant is alarming for the whole international community. The Iraqi authorities in the federal Government and in the Kurdistan regional Government need to co-ordinate and work together to put forward a political response and a security response to the situation. We are aware of large numbers of Iraqis being displaced from Mosul and the surrounding areas. The Department for International Development is monitoring that situation closely, and rapidly assessing the humanitarian need that will arise from it. I will ask my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in DFID to ensure that the House can be updated whenever possible.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the recall Bill. We announced the Bill in the Queen’s Speech and will introduce it in due course. We are making good progress with it. We have already introduced five Bills in this Session—three in the other place and two here—and we will introduce further Bills in due course.
	The hon. Lady also asked about defence spending. I have announced a debate on defence spending, which will take place next Thursday following the recommendations of the Backbench Business Committee. It will give my colleagues an opportunity to remind
	Members—including Opposition Members—that we inherited a defence budget with a £38 billion black hole. We have taken action to balance the books; Army 2020 is an integral part of that. An excellent job has been done—not least by the Defence Secretary and the Chief of the General Staff—to redesign the Army so that it can meet future demands while remaining affordable. We are committed to investing £1.8 billion in the reserves, and we are now seeing the benefit of that: the trained strength of the reserve forces is rising for the first time in 18 years.
	The hon. Lady asked about the situation in the Passport Office. I made it clear in response to questions last week that my colleagues would update the House on that matter this week, and they have done so in response to questions and to an Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson). The Home Secretary has also given the House a full, authoritative response on the issue and outlined a number of measures that will make a substantial difference in the weeks ahead.
	The hon. Lady asked about issues that she suggested were not being covered in the Government’s reply, and she included food prices. I heard one of my DEFRA colleagues reminding the House that food prices in the year to March rose by only 0.5%, and in the past two months food prices appear to have been falling, so it is important to bear in mind that on some issues relating to the cost of living people are in a better place than they might otherwise have been. That is particularly the case when they are in work, and as we saw just yesterday more than 2 million new private sector jobs have been created since the general election. If there is a gap, it is between the Labour party and reality on what is happening in our economy. Our long-term economic plan is delivering on reducing the deficit and on growth, which is 3% up on a year ago. We have 2 million more private sector jobs and 400,000 more businesses. We are delivering our long-term economic plan in the national interest while the Leader of the Opposition is off to serve the union interest.

Bernard Jenkin: I echo the call for a debate on the situation in Iraq, although it is noticeable that Her Majesty’s official Opposition did not ask for such a debate, having not provided a debate on foreign affairs during consideration of the Queen’s Speech. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a general debate on foreign affairs, to cover not only Iraq but the crisis in Syria and the situation in Ukraine?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and he is absolutely right: I was very surprised and disappointed that the Opposition did not choose to debate matters relating to foreign affairs and defence. Of course, the Backbench Business Committee will enable defence issues to be raised next week, but this was the second year in a row that the Opposition did not choose to debate foreign affairs. Given the circumstances in which they made that decision—the events in Ukraine and Syria, and now Iraq—it would have been helpful had they chosen to have such a debate. Anybody who examines the debate on the Queen’s Speech in the House of Lords will see that it had a full, substantial debate on foreign affairs. I believe that Members in the
	other place were astonished that there was no debate on foreign affairs in this House, but of course, these were matters for the Opposition.

Madeleine Moon: On average, 7,500 people are on the waiting list for transplants and each year 1,000 people die because an organ is not available. May we have a debate on why we cannot co-ordinate transplant week with the transplant games? That would allow us to raise the profile of the Donate Life campaign and then, we hope, three people a week would not die waiting for an organ to become available.

Andrew Lansley: I very much share the hon. Lady’s sense of the priority and importance of this issue. I was the sponsor in this House of transplant week some years ago, because more transplants take place in my constituency than anywhere else in the United Kingdom; it contains Papworth hospital, a leading heart and lung transplant centre, and Addenbrooke’s hospital, which deals with livers, kidneys, and pancreatic and other organs. If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health, who work with the charities concerned, about the timings of these important charitable events and what possibilities there might be, as we do want to make further progress. The number of people on the organ donation register has increased by 50%, which is having a big impact on the availability of organs, but we need to do more. I hope we will be able to co-ordinate things in the way she describes.

Mark Pritchard: May we have a debate on why Labour councils, particularly Telford & Wrekin council, are deliberately misinterpreting and miscommunicating the Government’s national planning guidelines? Do the Government still prefer development, be it residential or retail, to be on brownfield rather than greenfield sites?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is very much about a presumption in favour of brownfield over greenfield development; that is what the Government are looking towards. The other important thing is that this Government expect planning to be locally led. I am sure my hon. Friend will bring to bear on his council, in the way he describes, local people’s views on what they want in their local plan. Under the Localism Act 2011, that should be pre-eminent in the local plan.

John Denham: On Monday, the Secretary of State for Education announced that, in future, schools will teach British values. Although he appears to have been panicked by the crisis in his Department into announcing something with which he used to disagree, it is a very good idea. The problem is that it is easier said than done and harder to do well than badly, and if it is done badly it would probably be better not to do it at all. Can we have a debate in this House, before the Department publishes its proposals, on how exactly British values can be taught successfully and effectively in our schools?

Andrew Lansley: Indeed, I heard the Secretary of State say that. If I recall correctly—I will ensure that I am correct about this—I think he said that while he was looking for schools to promote British values, it was not
	some immediate response, but something he had been considering. I think it was the subject of a pre-existing consultation in any case. We will of course ensure that we keep the House informed about the progress of that consultation and our response to it.

Justin Tomlinson: Tackling domestic violence has rightly risen up the political agenda. Football United Against Domestic Violence is a new campaign by Women’s Aid working with national footballing bodies, sports, media, football clubs, the police, players and fans to send a clear message that domestic violence is always unacceptable. Following Tuesday’s successful parliamentary launch supported by the Premier League, BT Sport, the Football Association, Charlie Webster, Jahmene Douglas and a large number of cross-party MPs, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should hold a debate on this important subject?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is quite right: domestic violence and abuse ruin lives. They are completely unacceptable, which is why tackling this crime has been one of the Government’s top priorities since coming to office, and that includes backing the important work of Women’s Aid. He knows that there is not compelling evidence that suggests a causal link between sporting events and domestic violence and abuse. However, an event of the importance of the World cup presents an opportunity for us to target different audiences with our message concerning domestic abuse; he is quite right about that. It will build on the work of Women’s Aid, and the Home Office has launched a campaign for that purpose. Whether we are talking about physical violence, threats or coercive behaviour, they all count as abuse and it is part of our work to stop it.

Chris Ruane: It is a statutory responsibility of electoral registration officers and local authorities to do door-to-door canvassing of non-responders to voter registration. In Hansard today, there is a list of 22 local authorities that break the law, some of which have broken the law for four years on the trot and no action has been taken. Will the Leader of the House have a debate in Parliament on this important issue that affects our democracy?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise an immediate debate but I will if I may talk to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is responsible for Cities and Constitution and has oversight of such issues. In the first instance though, I will ask the Electoral Commission to respond because it has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of elections, which includes the work of the electoral registration officers and whether or not they meet their responsibilities.

Dominic Raab: This morning, the Court of Appeal overturned the Government’s application for a terrorism trial to be held in blanket secrecy. It still allows the state to hand-pick journalists to report on the case subject to undefined conditions. The House has had no explanation of why that is necessary, given existing powers such as public interest immunity powers, and the state is relying on vague common law powers which have not been set and defined by elected Members of this House. Given that principles of open justice and democracy are at stake, can we have a statement or a debate on the matter in the near future?

Andrew Lansley: It is probably best if I confine myself to what the Attorney-General said this morning, which is that the principle of open justice is key to the British legal system and that trials will always be held in public unless there are very strong reasons for doing otherwise. The measures applied for by the Crown Prosecution Service in this case were, it is believed, justified in order for the trial to proceed and for the defendants to hear the evidence against them, while protecting national security. The issues were considered today by the court; it is not for the Government to decide such things. As the Attorney-General rightly said this morning, we can look to the courts to ensure that the interests of justice will be maintained.

Margaret Ritchie: May we have a debate on ovarian cancer and particularly the need for the BRCA test to be available? It is available in Scotland, but despite the guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence saying that women in the rest of the UK should qualify, it is not available to them. There is an urgent need for a debate to address that inequality for women.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. I cannot promise a debate, but it is an issue about which she and colleagues might wish to approach the Backbench Business Committee, as debates on important health issues have been among the more successful of those it has been able to promote. I will speak to colleagues about responding directly to the hon. Lady on the issues she raises about the guidance.

Christopher Chope: As I came 17th in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, if I introduced a Bill to confirm that prisoners should not be allowed to vote, would it have Government support?

Andrew Lansley: I wish my hon. Friend good luck in the private Member’s Bill process, but I will adhere to the convention that the Government respond with their view on such Bills on Second Reading.

Julie Hilling: Of the 16 families who have contacted me about passport delays, the most tragic case is that of Kiran and Bina Salvi, who went to India in March for the birth of their surrogate twins. They were told that it would take six weeks to obtain their passports, and they have now been told that it will now be at least 16 weeks. They are at risk of losing their jobs, running out of money, stuck in a hot hotel room and terrified that their precious babies will get malaria. May we have a proper statement on this issue so that we can help Kiran and Bina bring their babies home?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady has given us some of the details, but if she wants to give me any additional details I will ask my hon. Friends at the Home Office to respond. She will have heard what the Home Secretary had to stay about the availability of emergency travel documents and access to urgent consideration for passport applications without charge. I hope that one of those options might be helpful in the case the hon. Lady mentions.

Anne McIntosh: May we have an early debate on the role of community hospitals, particularly in rural areas? I understand that
	the new head of NHS England has said that they have a future role to play, so this is a good opportunity to debate the issue on the Floor of the House.

Andrew Lansley: I recall that in the latter stages of the previous Session, there was a debate on community hospitals and I am pleased to see that Simon Stevens, the new chief executive of NHS England, has taken the matter up. When we took office, it was very important to us to have a greater focus on delivering care close to people’s homes, to improve people’s ability to step out of the high-cost acute hospitals so that they could concentrate on their job, and to give a focus to local commissioners. Often, it is the new local clinical commissioning groups that best understand how community hospitals can serve the purposes of the people they look after.

Paul Farrelly: May we have a debate on compensation for losses caused by the passport fiasco? In my office over the past few weeks, we have been trying to help people left in a desperate situation by the chaos, and it will not have escaped the country’s notice that the word “sorry” did not once pass the Home Secretary’s lips. She did not address the issue of compensation, either. Is it not only fair for people who apply for passports in good faith and in good time and who suffer losses—for example, by having to cancel their holidays—to be compensated? May we have a debate on that?

Andrew Lansley: I think that the Home Secretary fully responded to the questions raised just before business questions. I am sure that in future we will be able to look after our constituents much better, in the way that she described, by being able to raise urgent cases. In my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, when we have had to raise cases we have been able to get through on the MPs’ helpline and resolve them rapidly.

Paul Uppal: Many Members across the House will agree that Sepp Blatter’s recent comments were wholly unacceptable and a distraction from the real issues. If we are committed to tackling racism in football, we need to focus on the terraces, where there is a real issue, not on the back-rooms of Fleet street. Given this country’s proud history of tackling racism, may we have a debate on the state of football so that we in this House can send out the clearest message that racism and corruption in football is unacceptable and that by pushing the issue aside, FIFA risks tarnishing itself and ultimately the sport?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I completely agree with him: racism is unacceptable in all areas of society. I thought the remarks were probably inappropriate not least because in this country the Football Association has been proactive in tackling racism in football through a whole sport inclusion and anti-discrimination plan, “Football is for Everyone”, and the FA’s inclusion advisory body, chaired by Heather Rabbatts, is further promoting equality in the national game. It was therefore inappropriate to use that language in relation to questions properly being asked about the way in which FIFA was managing its processes. It was not appropriate. I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the chance to raise the matter.

Andrew McDonald: Even though the north-east of England is the only region outside London that makes a positive contribution to our GDP, it has among the lowest median incomes and the highest jobseeker’s allowance rates in the country. May we please have a debate to consider the special measures that can be taken to address the gross inequity and inequality that afflicts the north-east of England and other regions?

Andrew Lansley: I hope—I do not know—that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to address those issues in the course of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. He will, of course, have an opportunity to do so today in the debate on the economy and living standards that the Opposition have initiated with their amendment. He is quite right: it is disappointing that the north-east is the only region of the United Kingdom where unemployment went up in the latest figures; everywhere else, it went down. One thing we need to keep looking at is how we can continue to rebalance the economy, as is successfully happening in many other places. We want to try to improve manufacturing. We have seen manufacturing growing in the latest data at 4.4% a year, which is faster than for a long time. As a manufacturing economy, the north-east should be participating more fully in that.

Lee Scott: May we have a debate, following on from the global summit on sexual violence in war, on the conflict in Sri Lanka, which is still going on, against the Tamil community, where women are being raped daily?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, the Foreign Secretary will update the House on Monday, following what appears to have been an extremely successful global summit, not simply because we brought so many countries together for the purpose of ending sexual violence in conflict, but because of the vigour of the NGO community coming together in the same way. The message being sent out is that people need to understand the sheer scale and enormity of sexual violence in conflicts and that so very few people have been held responsible. That must not be true in future. It must be that the people responsible for such things will genuinely be held to account for the crimes they commit.

Nicholas Dakin: In March, I asked the Leader of the House when the Government would deliver the will of the House and the country by banning wild animals in circuses. He teased me rather in his response by saying that he could not pre-empt the Queen’s Speech. We have now had the Queen’s Speech and the measure is not in it. When will the Government bring forward legislation?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the Government’s intention to make progress on this, but unfortunately, as I said last week, it has not been possible to find time in the short Session ahead of us.

Simon Burns: Is the Leader of the House prepared to arrange for a statement next week on the procedures to replace the current Clerk of the House, when we could find out more on how much the use of head-hunters will cost, who will decide who
	the head-hunters are, who will monitor the progress of the head-hunters and who will take the final decision on the replacement Clerk?

Andrew Lansley: My right hon. Friend will understand that the procedures for the appointment of the new Clerk are a matter for the House of Commons Commission. Although I am a member of the Commission, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) answers on its behalf to the House. I know that my right hon. Friend will find an opportunity in due course to ask those questions. We will face a daunting task indeed in filling the silver-buckled shoes of the present Clerk, who is not here now. I hope to announce soon an opportunity for Members to pay tribute to the Clerk before the summer recess.

Tom Blenkinsop: Long-term youth unemployment since May 2010 in my constituency is up by 18.5% and long-term female unemployment is up by 76%—from 125 to 220 women—and in the north-east average earnings are down by £49 a week. Could we have a debate about how the Government’s long-term economic plan is clearly failing my constituents?

Andrew Lansley: As I told the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who asked about the north-east a moment ago, the latest data show a reduction in unemployment everywhere else in the UK. [Interruption.] I am saying that it is important that we understand why the north-east is not conforming to an extremely positive trend right across the rest of the country. The latest data show that unemployment as defined by the International Labour Organisation is down by 347,000 on the year; that the claimant count is down by more than 400,000; that the number of private sector jobs has gone up by nearly 800,000 in a year; and that, since the election, the number of unemployed young people is down by 91,000 and that of long-term unemployed by 108,000.

Neil Carmichael: The Leader of the House has been to my constituency, so he knows how beautiful it is, but Labour-led Stroud district council, having failed to get a local plan, has left it vulnerable to unscrupulous developers. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need to emphasise the fact that local plans are required and that it is the responsibility of no one other than the councils to have one?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have had the pleasure of visiting Stroud and it is a most beautiful place and a wonderful part of the country. It is very important that local people have an opportunity, through local plans, to ensure that development takes place in a way that is consistent with their views on the quality of life in their area. The local plan process is vital in that regard. Many authorities are getting on with it: I think that 76% of all councils have at least a published plan. Further amendments to the national planning policy guidance mean that publishing a local plan in itself enables one to have influence on the individual planning decisions being made, so it is important.

Jonathan Reynolds: Like many Members, I am very concerned about the number of constituents having severe difficulties with
	Atos Healthcare. One particularly distressing case involved my constituent Mr Vickers from Hyde, who has multiple support needs and has not had his application for a personal independence payment processed, even though he applied in October 2013. May we therefore have a debate about the Government’s performance in delivering the assessments, so that we can try to minimise the delay and distress being caused?

Andrew Lansley: It was necessary for us to move from the previous system of the disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, which is a much better system. In the past, people sometimes stayed on allowances for years without any assessment. It is important to have a proper assessment. As we make progress—we are doing so steadily—we need to make sure not only that we do it properly, but that we get to the point where decisions can be made quickly.

Tony Baldry: Could the Leader of the House or the Backbench Business Committee give the House an opportunity to hold a general debate on the concept of recall, so that the House collectively can work out what we are seeking to achieve? Some are arguing that oversight of the behaviour of Members of Parliament should be performed entirely externally, but any external body would, by definition, have to be statutory, and any statutory body would be subject to judicial oversight, which would mean the intervention of the courts and the potential for judicial review and applications in due course to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. It could, therefore, take a considerably long time for an MP who was under a cloud to go through that judicial process before their constituents had any opportunity to recall him or her.

Andrew Lansley: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As I have said in that past, I do not think we can contemplate a body other than the House itself reaching right into this Chamber to determine the circumstances in which a Member could continue their membership of this House. I think it is the House itself that should have such regulatory responsibility, not least for reasons of privilege.
	As far as a debate is concerned, the recall Bill will give exactly such an opportunity. It is also important that we hear from the Standards Committee, which is conducting a review of how to further strengthen this House’s standards process.

Kerry McCarthy: Echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), may I ask for a full debate on the chaos that is Atos assessing employment and support allowance? There is a backlog of 712,000 cases at the moment. We know that Atos is not fit for purpose and will be replaced, but can we ensure that we get things right next time and have a full debate to discuss that?

Andrew Lansley: Of course, I have to remind the hon. Lady that the contract was awarded to Atos by Labour in the first place. As she says, we are exiting the contract early, and of course there will be a substantial financial settlement to the Department for Work and Pensions as a result. We will continue to monitor the performance
	of Atos until its exit early next year and we will find a new provider to deliver the best possible service for claimants.

Glyn Davies: Will the Leader of the House arrange for us to have a debate on the future of the beef industry in Britain, which is currently experiencing a catastrophic collapse in prices as a result of imports, in which we can focus particularly on the country of origin, whether it be Ireland or other European countries?

Andrew Lansley: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend had an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, during Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. If he did not, I will of course ask my hon. Friends at DEFRA to respond directly to him about the issues that he raises.

Nia Griffith: Back in the early spring, I wrote to the Home Secretary about the issue of putting the mother’s name on the marriage certificate and I had a negative reply. Since then, there has been a growing campaign, with many thousands of people signing a petition, yet there was nothing in the Queen’s Speech about this issue. Will the Leader of the House now ask his colleagues at the Home Office to look at it again and see whether a measure on it can be included in this Government’s legislative programme?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that we have announced a full programme for this Session in the Queen’s Speech and that there will be very limited opportunities for additional legislation beyond that which has been announced. I believe that the petition she refers to has received a Government response, but whether it has or has not I will ask Ministers to look further at the points she raises and respond to her.

Jason McCartney: May we have a debate on nuisance calls? The latest batch of unsolicited automated calls to my constituents are about some kind of boiler replacement scheme. The calls are to constituents who have already applied to the Telephone Preference Service. They are massively inconveniencing, but they are also very distressing for elderly residents who live on their own.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He will recall that we published the nuisance calls action plan on 30 March. Since January 2012, the regulator has issued monetary penalties totalling just over £2.5 million to companies for breaching its rules, but in response to the action plan further work will be done with the Office of Communications to see whether the maximum penalty might be increased, in order to give a real sanction for those who are making nuisance calls, which is contrary to the code.

Andrew Love: With the lowest level of house building since the 1920s, may we have a debate on housing supply? The Government are taking many measures to increase housing demand, and all that those measures have led to is price inflation. Is there not an opportunity in the next few weeks to
	discuss housing supply? The measures in the Queen’s Speech are totally inadequate. We need real action and we need it now.

Andrew Lansley: On the contrary, the Government are taking action and indeed the Queen’s Speech included measures that—as the hon. Gentleman may have seen—will come forward in the infrastructure Bill, which will further support house building in this country. However, 445,000 new houses have been built under this Government. We are recovering from the position we were left in by the last Government, where house building fell off a cliff in the latter part of 2008. A good illustration of that recovery is that last year there were 216,000 new planning permissions.

Martin Vickers: On Tuesday, the Department for Transport issued a consultation document about the TransPennine Express rail franchise, which contained a proposal to end through-services between Cleethorpes and Manchester. It also included repeated references to the importance of good rail services to economic growth. As the Government have identified northern Lincolnshire and the Humber area as a key economic growth area, will the Leader of the House find time to have a debate on this issue?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a debate immediately but, in order to be as helpful as I can to my hon. Friend, and recognising the importance of the points he raises, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, our hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), to reply. There is considerable detail in what he might be able to say, and I want him to be able to provide that to my hon. Friend.

Paul Flynn: When the Government get around the restoring the Passport Office from its present emaciated and failing state to the efficient service it had been for the previous century, may we have a debate on the need to ensure that those areas that suffered the savage cuts two years ago, such as Newport, have the first call on new jobs?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman had a chance to ask the Home Secretary a question about that earlier. I fear that his characterisation of the Passport Office is not helpful, not least for his constituents and others. As he will have heard from the Home Secretary, the Passport Office is continuing to provide substantially the service intended. Where problems have occurred, new staff are being deployed, both in call centres and in case handling, and the Home Secretary has just announced other measures that will enable constituents to get the service they are looking for.

Mark Pawsey: La Casa Loco is a very successful Mexican restaurant in Rugby. Two years ago the owner engaged a firm of no win, no fee consultants to reduce the business rates bill, but it was unsuccessful. This year the Government announced the very welcome news that they are reducing the business rates bill by £1,000 for 300,000 shops, pubs and restaurants on our high streets, but in May the owner of the restaurant received a bill for £500—

Mr Speaker: Order. We have very little time. What I need is short questions and short answers. We might then make some progress.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right that the £1 billion package includes that discount, which many businesses will receive automatically. Any business that thinks it might be eligible for the discount but has not received it should contact the council, but there is absolutely no need to employ an agent in order to receive it.

Angela Smith: The Leader of the House witnessed this morning not only the unedifying spectacle of a Home Secretary who refuses to apologise to those experiencing problems with the Passport Office, but the large number of Members who were unable to raise their constituents’ concerns because of time pressures. Will he ensure that the Home Secretary continues to account to Parliament on the passport fiasco and that she does so on the Floor of the House?

Andrew Lansley: I heard a Home Secretary who is very well aware of the situation, as she has been for a long time, who is taking the necessary steps and who told the House today of further steps to provide reassurance and support to our constituents. You, Mr Speaker, understandably did not feel that it was possible to allow every question earlier. Therefore, as the Home Secretary said repeatedly, any Member who has particular difficulties, especially if they cannot get through on the MPs helpline, should raise them through my office or with the Minister for Security and Immigration and we will ensure that we respond to them as quickly as possible.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 72 on excessive hospital car parking charges?
	[That this House is disappointed that three-quarters of NHS hospitals in England charge patients and visitors to park on-site; notes that there are discrepancies over what is charged across England, with one hospital in London charging up to £500 per week to park on-site; believes that high charges deter visitors from seeing their loved ones and can hit the most vulnerable at a difficult time; further notes that the cost of abolishing car parking charges in England is estimated to be £200 million which, according to research, could be achieved through prescribing more generic drugs; and therefore asks the Government to consider scrapping hospital car parking fees across England.]
	Despite the Government saying that charges should be proportionate, some hospitals are charging up to £500 a week, and the charity Bliss says that parents with sick children are paying an extra £34 a week. May we have an urgent statement on that, and will he make representations to the Department of Health to see what can be done?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right that vulnerable people and their families who regularly have to attend hospital are hit hardest by parking charges. That is why it is most important that hospitals use their discretion and the kind of plan the NHS Confederation has for offering concessions to those who have to attend regularly for treatment or to visit patients. As far as raising
	resources for that is concerned, the money available for the health service is there for the treatment of patients. I have always made it clear that my personal view is that we should, wherever possible, deploy those resources for the direct benefit of patient care, rather than diverting it to subsidise parking.

Chris Bryant: May we have a debate on how to win friends and influence people in Europe? The Leader of the House could lead it so that we could judge whether he would be any good as an EU commissioner. More importantly, he could explain to us why on earth Conservative MEPs have today joined forces with the AfD party in German, expressly against the wishes of their own party leader.

Andrew Lansley: I think that the hon. Gentleman’s question is in one sense presumptuous. As far as winning friends and influencing people in Europe is concerned, that is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing, and with the support of the party leaders. The position he has taken, which is one of principle, is that under the treaties the European Council has the responsibility to put forward the President of the Commission. That should not be pre-empted by the European Parliament. He has set that out and the other party leaders absolutely support him. It is clear that Heads of Government across Europe support that principle.

Andrew Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for announcing the Foreign Secretary’s statement on the summit on sexual violence in conflicts. May we please have a debate on the matter so that we can explore it more and discuss the scale of the problem and what the summit achieved?

Andrew Lansley: I hope that the statement on Monday will be helpful to the House. It may well lead, quite properly, to calls for a further debate. We have to get our minds around the enormity of the problem. It is believed that an estimated 100,000 women were raped during the Guatemalan civil war. Between 20,000 and 50,000 were raped during the war in Bosnia. Over 200,000 were raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Those are frightful statistics. It is really important, as I have said previously, that those responsible are held to account, because very few of them have been. We must be much more confident that we can hold them to account in future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, may I just establish that he was here at the start of the statement, because I did not see him in his place?

Grahame Morris: indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker: In which case, I hope that he will understand that it would not be appropriate to call him.

Philip Hollobone: May we have a debate on who is to be the next President of the European Commission? Given that all the major parties are united in their opposition to the candidacy of Mr Juncker, this is an opportunity to send him a collective raspberry as well as to highlight the unity on the Conservative Benches against ever-closer union.

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend will understand, there will be regular opportunities to consider these matters, not least because the Prime Minister is assiduous in coming to the House and explaining them, as he did after the G7 summit and as he will have an opportunity to do after the further European Council at the end of the month. I hope that that will give us an opportunity to show that across the House there is a belief that the principle set out in the treaty should be adhered to: namely, that under the treaties it is responsibility of the democratically elected Heads of State and Government in the European Council to put forward who should be the President of the Commission.

Julian Sturdy: May we have a debate on the incursion of solar farms on to valuable green belt and high-grade agricultural land, as there appears to be a growing conflict over our renewable energy commitments and protecting high-grade, food-producing land, which is vital for our food security?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, our right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), set out very clearly how that should be reconciled, not least by stating that the strategy is that solar PV should be appropriately sited, give proper weight to environmental considerations, provide opportunities for local communities to influence decisions affecting them, and provide some form of community benefit. I recall reading his letter. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it sets out some good guidance for local authorities on making decisions about these applications.

Point of Order

Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions today, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson)—I have spoken with his office about this—said, “We are investing more in flood defences than the last Government.” Four months ago, following a similar claim by the Secretary of State, the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority wrote to me to confirm that Government spending on flood protection has been cut by about £250 million during the time the coalition Government have been in power. He added that
	“given the salience of these figures and the public interest in them, it is my view that it would better serve the public good if Defra were to consider publishing official statistics on expenditure… on… flooding… in future.”
	Can you advise me on how this House could give the UK Statistics Authority, rather than Ministers, the power to determine which figures are so important that they should be published as official statistics that are independent, quality assured and accurate?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of his intention to raise something of this kind. My best advice to him is that he should contact the Public Administration Committee, within whose auspices such matters would definitely fall. I appreciate that this has been a long-running matter so far as he is concerned, and if he wants to broker a step change or some sort of improvement in what he regards as an unsatisfactory state of affairs, going through that Select Committee might be a useful way to proceed. He can, of course, go to the Table Office and use the Order Paper in the usual way, and I dare say he will do so, but that is my most constructive advice to the hon. Gentleman and I hope it is helpful.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing order No. 57)
	Mr Secretary Grayling, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary David Jones, the Attorney-General, Oliver Letwin, Grant Shapps and Mr Nick Hurd presented a Bill to make provision as to matters to which a court must have regard in determining a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 16 June, and to be printed (Bill 9) with explanatory notes (Bill 9-EN).

Debate on the Address
	 — 
	[6th Day]

Debate resumed (Order, 11 June).
	Question again proposed,
	That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
	Most Gracious Sovereign,
	We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

The Economy and Living Standards

Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected amendment (c) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Debate should be relevant to the terms of the amendment.

Edward Balls: On this final day of debate on the Queen’s Speech, I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:
	‘but regret that the Gracious Speech fails to tackle the deepseated cost-of-living crisis with a plan to secure a strong and sustained recovery that delivers rising living standards for the many, not just a few at the top; and call on your Government to act to boost housing supply and ensure at least 200,000 new homes are built each year, introduce an independent infrastructure commission, reform the energy and banking markets to make them more competitive for consumers and businesses, make work pay by expanding free childcare for working parents, raise the value of the minimum wage over the next Parliament, introduce a lower ten pence starting rate of tax, set out reforms to ban recruitment agencies from hiring solely from overseas and put in place tougher enforcement of minimum wage laws to tackle the exploitation of migrant workers that undercuts local workers, introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee for young people and a new gold standard vocational qualification and give business a real say on apprenticeships in return for increasing their numbers to ensure that every young person gets the skills they need to succeed in the future.’.
	Our economy is growing again and unemployment is falling [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] yet we are today debating this Queen’s Speech just three weeks after local and European elections in which mainstream politics in our country was delivered a serious warning shot from the electorate—turnout was desperately low, the two main parties each failed to win even a third of the electorate, the Liberal Democrats were wiped out in most parts of the country, and the poll was topped by a party with no Members in this House at all and which campaigns to lead Britain out of the European Union. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his opening speech of this debate last week, these developments reflect
	“a depth and scale of disenchantment that we ignore at our peril—disenchantment that goes beyond one party and one Government.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 15.]
	All of us, in all parts of this House, know deep down that my right hon. Friend is right.
	We all heard time and again on the doorstep the worries, fears, insecurity and pessimism of people up and down our country that the economic recovery is not working for them, their family and their community. After Labour’s victory in Hammersmith and Fulham,
	perhaps the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) should listen more carefully to the electorate on these matters.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Edward Balls: I will open my remarks on the Queen’s Speech and take interventions in a moment.
	In the startlingly honest and blunt words—the Chancellor should listen to these words—of the Minister without Portfolio and previous Conservative Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke),
	“the populations of most European countries including the United Kingdom have not yet felt any sense of recovery.”
	He is right. There is a cost of living crisis and people are not feeling the benefit. The former Chancellor is right, too, to say that we in Britain are not alone. The European elections were no triumph for mainstream parties of left or right in most European countries, with far right or populist parties flourishing. The pattern that we have seen here in Britain—growth returning, but citizens expressing their insecurity and discontent at the ballot box—was repeated in countries such as Denmark and Austria, which also have growth and falling unemployment.
	That is why I say to all parts of this House, including my own, that it is a challenge to all mainstream parties that working people do not believe that they will share in rising prosperity, be able to afford a home, secure a better job or save for a decent pension.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Edward Balls: I will give way in a moment, when I have established my argument. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should not be complacent; they should listen to this.
	People have good reason to be sceptical. This stagnation in real wage growth is not just a problem of the past few years. It started in Britain over a decade ago as rapid technological change and global trade pressures put the squeeze on middle and low income households. The UK is not alone. That pattern is reflected across the developed world. Low wage and unskilled employment has grown, but research shows that traditionally middle-income, middle-class jobs in manufacturing and services have fallen as a share of total employment in all OECD countries. As the recent publicity around Google’s driverless car shows, labour-substituting technology is likely, if anything, to accelerate.
	So the question for this Queen’s Speech and the challenge for this political generation is to show that, in the face of globalisation and technological change, we can secure rising prosperity that working people believe they can share in. Of course we have to respond to their concerns about immigration and reform in Europe, but the challenge is to get more better paid jobs for people who feel they have been left behind, and to bring in new investment, new industries and new jobs which could replace those in traditional areas where jobs have gone.
	Those of us on the Opposition Benches will, with an open but critical mind, study the proposals in the Queen’s Speech on fracking, annuities, and pensions savings vehicles, but the real test against which this Queen’s Speech and the manifestos of all political parties will be
	judged over the next year is whether on jobs, skills, innovation and reform this generation can rise to the challenge and build an economy that works for all and not just a few.

Andrew Selous: In his quest to re-engage the electorate who have become disenchanted, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will believe that transparency and plain speaking are important. In that spirit, will he let us know clearly what Labour’s views are on increases in national insurance for employers?

Edward Balls: I am happy to do so. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), whom I respect a great deal, has a proposal, but that is not my proposal and it is not Labour’s proposal at all. We know that there are pressures in the national health service and that £3 billion has been wasted on an NHS reorganisation, but we also know that there is a cost of living crisis. People are paying hundreds of pounds more a year because of the Government’s VAT rise, and what we want to do is cut taxes for working people.

George Freeman: The shadow Chancellor mentioned the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who was quoted as saying,
	“I can’t tell you what a good meeting I had”
	with the shadow Chancellor about the jobs tax. Will he take the opportunity now in the House to confirm that the Labour party does not have a plan to introduce a jobs tax?

Hon. Members: Rule it out.

Edward Balls: I have just given exactly that answer. That is my right hon. Friend’s plan, not mine. I remind the House that in April 2010 at the general election the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, said:
	“We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT. Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax.”
	If hon. Members want to discuss broken promises, they should have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Edward Balls: Let me make a little more progress, then I will give way.
	Let me start by trying to find some common ground with the Chancellor on these big and difficult debates. I think we can agree that Britain has always succeeded, and can only succeed in the future, as an open, internationalist and outward-facing trading nation, with enterprise, risk and innovation valued and rewarded. We need to back entrepreneurs and wealth creation, generate the profits to finance investment and win the confidence of investors round the world. We can agree on that.
	Turning our face as a nation against the rest of the world and the opportunities of global trade is the road to national impoverishment. But at a time when there are powerful forces in technology and trade, which mean that many people are seeing their living standards falling year on year, we cannot take for granted public support for that open global market vision. As the
	Member of Parliament whose constituency until recently had the largest BNP membership of any in the country, I know how some on the extremes of left and right see isolationism as the solution—turning inwards, setting their face against Europe and the world economy—which would be a disastrous road to take. It would be the wrong way to proceed.

Brian H Donohoe: On the question of jobs, we all applaud the number of jobs created in the country, but do we know how many have been created on zero-hours contracts?

Edward Balls: We know that the zero-hours contract is one of the symptoms of change in our labour market that is causing such insecurity. My hon. Friend raises that matter because the reality is that none of us on either side of the House can afford to bury our head in the sand and ignore the legitimate and mainstream concerns of people across our country about our economy not currently working for them and their families.
	The challenge for this generation is how we respond. In my view, there are two quite wrongheaded ways to respond. The first is to assume that business as usual will just do the job—that the return of GDP growth will solve the problem. I must say to the Chancellor and to Government Members—particularly to the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham, given the result in his constituency—that every time they boast that their economic plan is working, I am afraid most people in our country just think they are completely out of touch. It may be working for some—a privileged few—but people say time and again, “It’s not working for me. It’s not working for my family. It’s not working for our community.” That is what they have to solve.

Tobias Ellwood: We have asked time and again, but will the shadow Chancellor rule out an increase in national insurance or not? I would add that businesses in Bournemouth are worried about another tax—a property owner’s tax, which is another Labour invention—so will he rule that out as well?

Edward Balls: To return to a previous debate, the hon. Gentleman has had a 700% rise in long-term youth unemployment in his constituency since 2010. What he should do is to engage with what we actually need in order to have a successful long-term economic plan.

Tobias Ellwood: I am very pleased to see the shadow Chancellor has a briefing note that even has my picture on it. What he is not informed about is that long-term youth unemployment includes students. I am pleased to say that the three universities in Bournemouth are increasing their numbers. The statistic has gone up because it includes students.

Edward Balls: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman got that wrong last time, and he is wrong again. I am referring to jobseeker’s allowance—the claimant count—and students are excluded from the figures. I must say that it is excusable to make that mistake once, but having done it twice, his chances of getting on to the Front Bench are severely diminished.

Alison McGovern: Before those interventions, the shadow Chancellor was making an extraordinarily important speech. Does he agree that the fundamental question we face is whether the link between economic growth and the living standards of people doing ordinary jobs in our country is broken or not? Will he return to such points, because those are the issues that my constituents fret about day in, day out?

Edward Balls: I will. This is the most vital and difficult issue. We have seen a rise in unskilled jobs in our country in recent years. That is a good thing, but it is not good enough. If that goes alongside falling living standards year on year for people not just on the lowest but on middle incomes, what will we end up with? We will end up with rising poverty among working people and record numbers of working people going to food banks, as well as rising alienation and a view that mainstream politics is not delivering. Unless Conservative Members wake up to that, they will see the consequences of it next year.

Tobias Ellwood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: I call Mr Ellwood on a point of order—in quick order as well.

Tobias Ellwood: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad of that vote of approval. I am just asking for clarification and giving the shadow Chancellor an opportunity to correct himself. He, I think inadvertently, misled the House by suggesting that Bournemouth’s youth unemployment has increased; according to figures from the Library, it has reduced by 40% over the past year.

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Ellwood, that is not a point of order; that is continuing the debate. You have had three chances at it: three strikes and you’re out—no more.

Edward Balls: It is also completely pathetic. In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the number of young people aged between 18 and 24 claiming JSA who have been out of work for more than 12 months has gone up by 700%. As I said a moment ago, you either bury your head in the sand, or you face up to these big issues. We are facing up to them, but Government Members are incapable of doing so.

Ian Austin: The shadow Chancellor is setting out a really important argument about the recent election results, the widespread disenchantment that clearly exists in Britain at the moment, and the effects of globalisation and technological change on the economy. Is it not absolutely extraordinary that while he is doing so, he is being subjected to these utterly juvenile interventions? Does he not find it extraordinary that all Government Members can do is to read out handouts from the Whips, and the idiot from Bournemouth cannot even get that right? [Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Tobias Ellwood: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Sit down, Mr Ellwood. [Laughter.] This is a serious debate. Mr Ellwood, I am sure that you have very broad shoulders, and you will give your all when you get your turn to speak, perhaps in interventions on the Chancellor.

Edward Balls: I am trying to respond to serious issues. The reality is that, yes, after three years of flatlining, our economy is finally growing again, but net lending to small business is still falling, youth unemployment is still at record highs, wages are not keeping pace with prices and people are worse off. What I want to say is that unless we face up to that reality, we will not make progress. [Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Mr Ellwood, I can hear what you are saying. Actually, I agree that the way in which the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) referred to you was uncalled for. You are an honourable Member of this House, and I am sure that Mr Austin wants to make it clear that that is his view.

Ian Austin: I did not mean—[Laughter.] Madam Deputy Speaker, the last thing I would want to do is upset you, but I have to say that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention—[Laughter.]

Hon. Members: Apologise!

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I expect Members to behave according to the rules of the Chamber, of which they are fully aware. Mr Austin, the word you are looking for is “sorry”. Stand up, please, and say sorry.

Ian Austin: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to apologise to you. [Interruption.]

Dawn Primarolo: Order. For goodness’ sake, everybody calm down. That is good enough: “sorry” is on the record in relation to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). That is the end of it.

Jamie Reed: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dawn Primarolo: No. I am not going to take a point of order; I am going to listen to what Mr Balls has to say. This is getting ridiculous.

Edward Balls: As I said, the first wrongheaded thing to do is to bury one’s head in the sand and not to face up to the reality. We can debate the Chancellor’s record. In 2010, he said that he would balance the Budget in 2015, but the deficit will be £75 million. He said that he would make people better off, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that people will be worse off in 2015 than they were in 2010. He said that we would all be in this together, but he has imposed the bedroom tax on the most vulnerable, seen record numbers go to food banks and cut the top rate of income tax for those earning more than £150,000.

James Morris: rose—

Charlie Elphicke: rose—

Edward Balls: I will give way in one second.
	My greatest concern on the agenda of how we can deliver more good jobs for the future is the Chancellor’s commitment to delivering a balanced economic recovery.
	If we look at what is actually happening, it is true that the economy is growing, but within the G7, it is still only the UK and Italy that have not recovered to their pre-crisis peaks in output. With the rise in the population, it will take a full 10 years for income per head to recover to where it was in 2007. Worse than that is the level of business investment.
	I am pleased that there are finally signs that business investment is starting to pick up, but as of now, we have the fourth lowest level of business investment in the European Union. Only Cyprus, Greece and Ireland are lower than the United Kingdom. Our export growth is sixth in the G7, 16th in the G20 and 22nd in the EU since 2010. Our research and development expenditure is the lowest in the G7. Lending to business is still falling. There has been a 12% fall in infrastructure output since 2010. Public investment is being cut next year. Those are not figures about which we can be complacent.

Henry Bellingham: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about investment, but he is being quite selective. In respect of foreign direct investment, is he aware that the UK secured nearly 800 new projects last year—the highest ever—and that we have 20% of all FDI in the EU? Is that not a very good sign indeed?

Edward Balls: Of course that is good news. For decades, we have been an open, global trading nation that attracts investment from around the world, and I want to keep it that way. However, complacency is not the way to make that happen. We have to face up to the reality that living standards are falling because, as the International Monetary Fund said in its report last week, our recovery is characterised by woefully low productivity growth. That is why living standards and wages are still falling, even as growth returns. Unless we face up to that challenge, we will have substantial problems.

James Morris: Last year, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Chancellor should listen to the IMF. Surely, he should take his own advice. He was wrong on growth. The Government’s long-term economic plan is working. Higher taxes would lead to a more insecure Britain. In the spirit of the debate that he wants to have, surely he has to admit that he was wrong on growth.

Edward Balls: In 2010, the Chancellor said that, by now, the economy would have grown by 12%. It has actually grown by half that amount. That is why the deficit has not come down and why people are worse off. The Chancellor would have been well advised to take the sound advice in 2010 and not choke off the economic recovery. He should take the sound advice of the IMF now and look at ways to improve housing supply and to tackle the woeful productivity performance over which he is presiding.

Toby Perkins: The Chancellor acts as though he is the only person who has delivered growth, but we already had growth when he came to
	power. When there was light at the end of the tunnel, he spent two and a half years building more tunnel. Finally, now that we have growth—after everyone else—he says, “Haven’t I done well?”.

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend’s description of the historical record since 2010 is correct. However, the real issue is why we still have such low investment and why living standards are still falling. The jobs that we are creating are not delivering rising living standards for working people. We have only to look at the election results from a few weeks ago to see the potential challenge to Britain’s place in the world if we do not understand those forces.

Ian Lucas: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Edward Balls: In a second.
	As I said, the first mistake is to bury our heads in the sand. The second mistake is to attempt to appease those who say that the problem is rapid globalisation and technological change and that therefore the simplest thing to do is to put up trade barriers, stop all migration to Britain and leave the European Union. That is the wrong approach as well.
	We all know the depth of concern about immigration in our country, but when the Prime Minister claimed, foolishly, that he would reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, “no ifs, no buts”, he did the cause of sensible and progressive immigration reform no good at all, because he has failed. Net migration has not come down to the tens of thousands; it has stuck stubbornly above 200,000 a year. Even the Chancellor has admitted that the Government will not meet their immigration target. Sending ad vans around the country urging immigrants to go home has only undermined their credibility. That is not the right approach on this issue.
	We need clear reform on this matter. We need tough new laws to stop agencies and employers exploiting cheap migrant labour to undercut wages and jobs. We need to strengthen our border controls, not weaken them. We need to ensure that people who come to this country can learn English, and we must provide the support to make that happen. We need fairer rules to make sure that people who come here contribute, cannot claim benefits when they arrive and can more easily be deported if they commit a crime. We need to reform the free movement of labour in Europe through longer transitional controls, stronger employment protection and restrictions on benefits. Those are the things that we have to do. We need reform, not posturing and pandering.

Edward Leigh: But the fact remains that too many traditional, working-class voters voted UKIP in the European elections. That is a serious problem for both political parties. Should we not now regret that there was such unrestricted immigration from eastern Europe? Can we not learn the lessons of that?

Edward Balls: I am very happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that not having transitional controls in 2004 was a mistake, and one that we all still deal with the consequences of. The question is whether we should have allies in
	Europe whom we can persuade to do things better for the future or walk away from our European partners and find that we are treated with disdain in the decision-making halls of Europe. That is the real question for statesmanship and politics in our country at the moment.
	Our view on that question is clear. We say that there is no future for Britain in walking away from the European Union. It is the biggest single market for the companies, regions and countries of the United Kingdom. We have to reform Europe to make it work better for Britain, but we are much more likely to win the arguments if we are fully engaged, rather than having one foot out of the door.
	The Prime Minister and the Chancellor used to agree with that argument. They came though the Lobby with us in 2011 to oppose an arbitrary timetable for an EU referendum. Then, they changed their minds. The Prime Minister flounced out of a summit and decided to appease Tory Back Benchers by performing a U-turn. In the memorable words of Lord Heseltine,
	“To commit to a referendum about a negotiation that hasn’t begun, on a timescale you cannot predict, on an outcome that’s unknown, where Britain’s appeal as an inward investment market would be the centre of the debate, seems to me like an unnecessary gamble.”

Therese Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Speaker was very clear in his guidance earlier that we should speak to the amendment. I am struggling to find in the amendment any mention of a European referendum.

Dawn Primarolo: Fortunately, that is a matter for me, and not the hon. Lady. The clear argument that is being advanced is about the importance of that matter to the economy. As long as the right hon. Gentleman stays on that point, he is in order.

Edward Balls: The argument that I am making is that if we as a House—those of us on the left and on the right—are to face up to the challenge of delivering more and better jobs for working people and if we are to see off the pressures for isolation and withdrawal, we cannot take the wrong-headed approach either of denying that there is a problem or of appeasing those who would try to walk away. We need a Queen’s Speech that rises to that challenge. My point is that, in putting all its energy into Europe and the referendum, the Conservative party has the wrong strategy to deal with the challenge that we face.

George Osborne: Just so that we can be absolutely clear, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear from the Dispatch Box that Labour will not offer a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union now or in the manifesto at the general election and will therefore vote against any private Member’s Bill that proposes one?

Edward Balls: We have said very clearly that we do not believe in an ever-closer Union. If there is any proposal to transfer powers to Brussels from London, we will have a referendum in the next Parliament. Our position is clear. We are not turning our face against a referendum. What we are turning our face against is a referendum that would destabilise our country and cause it to lose investment and jobs.
	Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it: let me read the conclusion, a year on from the Prime Minister’s decision, of the Chancellor’s biographer in the Financial Times. He stated that Downing street’s three objectives for the referendum were
	“to pacify Tory MPs, sap the momentum of the fringe UK Independence party and put the troublesome subject of Europe to sleep until the general election in 2015. On all scores, it failed.”
	That must qualify as the understatement of the year. [Interruption.] I have given my view.

George Osborne: I ask the shadow Chancellor to answer the question that I put to him. Does he rule out offering, now or in the Labour manifesto at the general election, an in-out referendum on Europe, and will the Labour party therefore vote against any private Member’s Bill that is introduced?

Edward Balls: The answer is no, of course we will not rule that out, because we have a clear commitment that if there is any proposal to transfer powers, we will have an in-out referendum in the next Parliament. That is our position. I gave the Chancellor the answer once, he did not listen and I gave it to him again.
	Is not the reality that the Prime Minister’s attempt to appease Tory Back Benchers has failed and that it has not worked very well with the Front Benchers either? Just a few months ago, just after the Budget, the last time we had such a debate, we had read stories in the newspapers about the Education Secretary trying to undermine the leadership ambitions of the Mayor of London—it was briefed, I believe, to The Mail on Sunday at a lunch. Last week, it was the Home Secretary who was targeted by the Education Secretary, this time to The Times over lunch. The first time, the Education Secretary explained that he was tipsy. He has obviously been on the sauce again. There is a pattern here: a rival to the Chancellor tops the “ConservativeHome” leadership poll and the Education Secretary is sent out to try to stop them at all costs. Now we know that when the Chancellor and the Education Secretary have a late-night chat about the Prevent strategy, they are talking about a rather different prevent strategy from the one that we are talking about. It is pretty clear who the Chancellor has tried to prevent through all his interventions.

Robert Halfon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Balls: I want to come to the Queen’s Speech, but I will give way.

Robert Halfon: I am grateful. If the right hon. Gentleman’s economic message is being listened to, why did the Labour vote in Harlow decline by 20% over the past two years, and why did Labour lose three council seats in safe Labour wards? Is it not because Labour betrayed the working classes and voted against our tax cuts for lower earners, our fuel duty freeze and our council tax freeze?

Edward Balls: I respect the hon. Gentleman and his views, but the main message of my speech so far has been a warning against complacency, and I suggest that he heeds that warning. [Interruption.] As should the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands).
	As I said, the challenge that this Queen’s Speech should have risen to, but did not, is how we can ensure that we generate a secure recovery that delivers more good jobs for our country. The huge disappointment was that that was not the subject of this Queen’s Speech. We know that there is no quick fix and that we have to earn our way to rising prosperity. We cannot turn our face against change, Europe and the world, but nor can we succeed with a race to the bottom whereby British companies simply try to compete on cost and the Government see their role as simply removing regulation, undermining job security and hoping it will work. That will not generate the low and middle-income jobs that we need in the future. Our view is that we can succeed only through a race to the top, by backing innovation and investing in skills, making our economy more competitive and dynamic and earning our way to higher living standards for all.

Sharon Hodgson: In my constituency, long-term unemployment has increased by almost 600% in the past two years and 380 people are desperately in need of some sight of the so-called recovery. What was in the Queen’s Speech that will give them any hope?

Edward Balls: I am afraid that the Queen’s Speech missed out the key elements of a long-term economic plan that would deliver rising prosperity for all. That is the problem. We know that there is a problem on housing—demand has run ahead of supply—so where was the action in the Queen’s Speech to deliver new towns, Treasury guarantees, planning reform, affordable homes, reform to Help to Buy and a new help to build scheme, which would deliver what we need? We have lower levels of house building than at any time since the 1920s, and the Chancellor is tinkering. It is about time that he showed some leadership on housing, otherwise the aspirational majority will not get on the housing ladder. The danger is that interest rates will rise much earlier in the recovery than they should, choking off the living standards of people across our country.
	The same point applies more widely to the Queen’s Speech. On skills, where was the action to deliver a gold standard for vocational qualifications? Where was the tax on bank bonuses to ensure that every young person who is out of work for a year is guaranteed a job? Where was the action to ensure that we incentivise a non-statutory living wage, improve the minimum wage and tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts?
	Although we welcome the extra investment in child care, that will not happen until the next Parliament. It will fail to help too many families who are struggling with the costs of child care, which have gone up so much. Why will the Chancellor not increase free child care for the under-fives from 15 hours to 25 hours a week for working parents? It is a Labour policy, but it is a good policy and should be in any sensible long-term economic plan.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to seek to raise prosperity and ambition in this country. Is not the Government’s strategy utterly self-defeating? We now have record numbers of people in work but in poverty. Do we not need to ensure that those people have work that pays, and pays well?

Edward Balls: I agree with my hon. Friend. I want to come to a conclusion, because many Members, particularly on the Opposition Benches, want to speak, but he is completely right. Where in the Queen’s Speech was the independent infrastructure commission to get the infrastructure we need? Where was the proper British investment bank to back small businesses? Where were those key elements of a plan that will deliver more and better jobs for working people?
	There was one other reform that I was disappointed was not in the Queen’s Speech, and I urge the Chancellor to reconsider it in the next two or three weeks. We know that there are big challenges to restore public trust. Our commitment is clear: we will balance the books in the next Parliament and get the national debt falling, and we will do it in a fairer way. It is hugely disappointing that the Chancellor has not committed, as he could have done, to introduce legislation to allow the Office for Budget Responsibility to audit independently the costings of every spending and tax measure in each main party manifesto. The Chair of the Treasury Committee and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury support that; why will the Chancellor not put politics aside and do the right thing? It would be the first such independent audit ever. It is essential to restore public trust in politics and improve the nature of the political debate, and the Chancellor can still change his mind in the next few weeks and make it happen.
	This is Labour’s agenda for economic change. As I have argued from the beginning of this speech, we will sustain support for an open and dynamic market economy only if we can show that it will work for all, not just some. We need radical reforms to deliver more good jobs and make work pay, in marked contrast to Tory Ministers and Back Benchers burying their heads in the sand, repeating a hollow mantra and hoping that more of the same will restore public trust. That is patently not working. We need 200,000 homes a year, a compulsory jobs guarantee, a gold-standard vocational qualification, 25 hours a week of free child care, energy market reform with a 20-month price freeze, the books to balanced in a fair way, a proper British investment bank and an independent infrastructure commission. That is the long-term economic plan that Britain needs, and only Labour will deliver it.

George Osborne: I rise to support the Queen’s Speech and its many measures that back business, savers and hard-working people. The shadow Chancellor has come with a new catchphrase. He talked about a “long-term economic plan”. I think it is good; it might catch on. It has a ring to it, but I am sure I have heard it before. That is the problem with his entire speech: he could not utter the inescapable truth that Britain has a long-term economic plan, and that that plan is working.
	We are attracting more investment than Germany and creating jobs at a faster rate than the United States. We are expanding more than four times faster than the Government the right hon. Gentleman admired in France, and growing faster than any major economy in the world. Of course, there is much more to do to build our exports, back our businesses, encourage savings, build homes, secure investment, build our economic infrastructure and rebalance our economy, and the Bills in this Queen’s Speech take us forward in that direction.

Toby Perkins: The Chancellor says that the economic plan is working, but who is it working for? It might be working for his friends who he used to go boozing with at the Bullingdon club, but working people in my constituency find that it is harder and harder every single month to make work pay. What will the Chancellor do to make work pay under his Government.

George Osborne: That is what is so revealing about the Labour party’s performance in the past half hour. The shadow Chancellor started by reading out the article in the New Statesman this morning and trying his piece on new politics, but within about 10 minutes it all descended into Bullingdon club jokes, and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) having to withdraw his comment. The shadow Chancellor then descended into the normal slapdash that we have got used to in the House. Incidentally, there is a striking echo with what went wrong with the Leader of the Opposition’s speech at the beginning of the Queen’s Speech debate. That is because he is unable to engage in the serious economic argument about what needs to happen in this country.

Robert Halfon: When a hard-working person in Harlow considers the economy, he will leave his house in the morning on the way to work probably knowing that his mortgage is low and fuel duty is frozen. When he gets to work he will see more people in work and more apprentices, and when he looks at his pay packet, he will see that his tax bill has been cut by hundreds of pounds.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. By reducing income tax and increasing the personal allowance, by freezing fuel duty—something he campaigned on powerfully in this Parliament—and above all by having an economy that creates rather than destroys jobs, we are holding out the prospect of economic security and better prosperity for our country in the decade ahead. That is what we all want to secure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

George Osborne: I will give way in a moment, but let me make some progress. I know that about 50 Members want to speak in this debate—[Hon. Members: “Not on your side.”] Well, we will hear. No doubt Labour Members can all get up on their feet and repeat what they said last year .
	I have done something that I know we are not supposed to do in this place, because I actually bothered to read what the shadow Chancellor said in the House last year. Here we are in the privacy of the House of Commons where no one is listening, but what were his pearls of wisdom? In this exact debate last year he issued a stark warning that the British economy would “flatline” unless we abandoned our plan immediately. Since he made that prediction, we have stuck to our plan and our economy has grown by more than 3%.
	Last year in this debate the shadow Chancellor said that business investment would “stall”, but it has since grown by almost 9%. He told us that unemployment would rise, but since he made that prediction more than 800,000 new jobs have been created. He warned ominously that youth unemployment would rise too, but it is down by 100,000 over the past 12 months. From re-reading the speeches of the shadow Chancellor, I have discovered that he performs a very useful function. He is an infallible
	guide to the future performance of the British economy: whatever he predicts, we can be sure that the exact opposite happens.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the Chancellor answer a simple question about employment? How many people are on zero-hours contracts?

George Osborne: I do not have the number the hon. Gentleman asks for here, but there were zero-hours contracts under the previous Labour Government and there are Labour councils that use zero-hours contracts. As those on the Labour Front Bench have pointed out, not all zero-hours contracts are bad. One measure in the Queen’s Speech that was not mentioned by the shadow Chancellor—indeed, he did not actually address the speech in his remarks—will ban exclusivity with zero-hours contracts. Labour had 13 years; the shadow Chancellor was in charge of economic policy for 13 years and could have taken such a step, but he did not. I suggest that Labour Members hold their tongues and come with the Government through the Division Lobbies as we do something about an abuse that they did absolutely nothing to crack down on.

Christopher Pincher: On the topic of pearls of wisdom from the shadow Chancellor, does my right hon. Friend agree that his rather careful formulation that a jobs tax is not his argument was rather too clever by half? We did not hear from the shadow Chancellor a clear commitment that a jobs tax is not Labour’s policy now or at the general election.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. We listened carefully, but like the Leader of the Opposition the shadow Chancellor did not rule out a jobs tax. Why? Because it is Labour’s tax of choice. That is what they did in government when they increased national insurance, and what they proposed at the general election. A couple of years ago the shadow Chancellor admitted that he would be minded to do that as a means of bringing order to the public finances—his weapon of choice is a jobs tax. That is Labour’s answer to jobs: tax them, destroy them, make people unemployed. That is why every Labour Government in history have left the House with unemployment higher than when they entered office.

Several hon. Members: rose—

George Osborne: Let me make a little progress and then I will take more interventions. In a debate after last year’s Queen’s Speech—[Interruption.] I am talking about this year because last year the shadow Chancellor urged me to do something this year. In the conclusion to his speech last year, he said that the Chancellor should listen to the International Monetary Fund. He also said that
	“a sensible and economically literate chancellor would heed the IMF’s advice.”
	I have reflected on that advice, and I think I will listen to the IMF. I have its most recent statement from last week and it states that growth in Britain is projected to be
	“the fastest among the major advanced economies.”
	It says that the economy has rebounded strongly, that inflation has fallen rapidly, that growth is becoming more balanced, that we are moving towards an investment-led economy, and that that good macro-economic
	performance is expected to persist. It stated that the news coming out of the UK recently has been “pretty much all good”, in contrast to the shadow Chancellor’s predictions, which were pretty much all bad. It concludes that our fiscal policy—the deficit reduction plan that the shadow Chancellor bets his entire economic credibility on opposing—is the “anchor” of Britain’s stability and economic success. My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is this: I am listening to the IMF, the CBI, the chambers of commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and the OECD. Who on earth is he listening to?

Helen Goodman: Will the Chancellor listen to the IMF on the housing market, of which he has made a total mess? House prices are rising by 20% in London, and there is negative equity in the north. Not one property was sold for £600,000 in my constituency. Will the Chancellor now abandon the stupid Help to Buy scheme, which goes up to £600,000 for new home owners?

George Osborne: I will come on to say something about the housing market, and I am first to say that we must be vigilant about housing. But to get a lecture from the party that presided over the biggest housing boom and bust in British history—

Edward Balls: What?

George Osborne: The shadow Chancellor says “what?” He might forget what happened in 2007-08 when the banks almost went bust because they extended housing loans that people could not afford, house prices fell, housing starts went off a cliff, and the people of Britain paid the price of an economic policy predicated on the fact that there would be no more boom and bust. The people of Britain are living with the consequences of that policy. Will he just accept now that basing an economic policy on the prediction that there will be no more boom and bust was an error of judgment?

Edward Balls: Will the Chancellor like to tell the House how many people went into negative equity after 2007, and how that compares with the number of people—the tens of thousands—who were put into negative equity after the Conservative housing crash of 1989? If he is going to make these statements he ought to be able to make them stand up. While we are here, will he tell us—

Dawn Primarolo: No, no, no. Mr Balls, sit down. Not “While we are here.” One point at a time.

George Osborne: The right hon. Gentleman’s argument seems to be, “My crash was better than your crash.” That is a brilliant argument. I will tell him the answer. He was going to remove a temporary scheme that protects people from mortgage costs when they become unemployed. I extended it year after year after year. I have extended it again in the Budget to make sure that people do not find themselves having their homes repossessed. Can I also tell him that the housing market fell by almost 20%? The price of houses fell and there were people at Northern Rock—[Interruption.] His argument is literally, “I’m sorry we messed it up, but
	you messed it up in the past as well.” That is an absolutely hopeless argument. I have learned the lesson from the terrible mistake—

Edward Balls: You were wrong.

George Osborne: I was wrong? This is the man who presided over the deepest recession in British modern history and the biggest banking crisis since the Victorian age. He has the nerve to get up and say to the team that is turning the country around that we got it wrong. The truth is that he is the person who got it wrong.
	There was a very interesting observation this week by Charles Clarke, who was the Home Secretary when Labour were in office. This is what he said:
	“we have rested a great deal on assuming that the Conservative strategy wouldn’t succeed, that ‘plan A’…would not work and that has proved to be an unwise judgment because in fact, the Conservatives have succeeded in getting the economy onto a more positive path which leaves us”—
	the Labour party—
	“very little place”.

Alison McGovern: I think the Chancellor gave himself away at the beginning of his speech when he described “long-term economic plan” as just a catchphrase. He said he would close the budget deficit and he has not. If his policies are such a success, why not?

George Osborne: It is not a catchphrase; it is a plan that has cut the claimant count in the hon. Lady’s constituency by 45%. That is a plan that is working. The budget deficit has been halved. If her argument is that we should be cutting faster or trying to get the deficit down faster, that is a novel argument because it is not one I remember being made at any one of the economic debates when she and the rest of the Labour party trooped through the Division Lobby against every single change we have made to try to bring the public finances under control.

Several hon. Members: rose—

George Osborne: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) who made an absolutely brilliant opening to this Queen’s Speech debate.

Penny Mordaunt: I can understand why the shadow Chancellor does not want to congratulate those on the Government Front Bench. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people in Portsmouth—those who have taken a risk and set up a business, and the 2,000 people who have got back into work—ought to be praised for their achievements rather than have them dismissed by the Labour party?

George Osborne: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The progress being made in Portsmouth—the jobs created, the businesses set up and the support people get from their Member of Parliament—is an example of how the long-term economic plan is working for the people of Portsmouth, and how we need to go on working with that plan, rather than abandoning it.
	The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) asked me what we can do to get the budget deficit down. I suspect that even the shadow Chancellor does not
	know. He tabled a motion today, although he did not speak to it. The cost of implementing it would be £14 billion. There is not a single measure in it that would reduce public spending or pay for that £14 billion price tag. It is completely incredible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

George Osborne: I will make a little progress and then give way.
	That speaks to a broader point. The shadow Chancellor is not a naturally retiring type. He likes to get out there and meet people. He likes to go to supermarkets and shake people’s hands. The truth, however, is that he has gone quiet in recent months and we do not see him so much on the television or hear him on the radio. I think that is because he knows—or rather his party leadership knows—that they have lost the macro-economic argument. He is now losing the micro-economic argument within his own party. The Leader of the Opposition does not want to talk anymore about Labour’s spending and borrowing plans, because he knows they are very unpopular. Instead, there is a whole series of populist initiatives on price controls, incomes policies, bans on foreign investment, renationalisation, and wars on business and enterprise. The truth is that the shadow Chancellor actually spent a considerable period of time, in Opposition in the 1990s and then in office, trying to get his party to reject these kinds of things. He knows that they will lead to higher prices, lower incomes, less investment and fewer businesses.
	In fact, the shadow Chancellor makes no secret, if we read between the lines of his speech today and his article in the New Statesman, that he is not in favour of trying to restrict the open economy, and that he values foreign investment coming into the country. The problem is that the message being given out by the leader of the Labour party is the complete opposite of that—it is in a completely different direction. He jumps on every single issue to make the argument, essentially, that we need a more closed economy and that there is a dangerous race to the bottom. The truth is that I think the shadow Chancellor and I agree that it would be a disaster for Britain to head down that route.
	The shadow Chancellor has a macro-economic argument, which is that Britain should be borrowing and spending more, and, if necessary, increasing taxes to pay for it, but the Labour leader will not allow him to make that argument anymore, so he has gone completely silent. Normally, he is there right behind the leader of the Labour party, right behind his shoulder blades waiting to support him. Instead, he has learned a trick from his old friend, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown): when the Labour party is doing badly, losing by-elections and the like, stay quiet and disappear. That is what he has attempted to do in the past couple of months. The truth is that the threat that his economic approach represents—higher taxes, and borrowing that would destroy our public finances and push interest rates up—does not go away just because he goes away. That is the plan he would put into practice were he ever to walk through the doors of the Treasury again.

Barry Sheerman: Before the Chancellor moves on, he was giving us a history lesson earlier but could we have some proper history?
	He was criticising the shadow Chancellor for the period when the Chancellor alleges things went wrong with the banks and lending. He himself, the present Chancellor, was urging less control and less regulation. Let us get that history right. Will the Chancellor address one issue: why is productivity failing to improve?

George Osborne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that productivity is one of the challenges for the British economy. I have to say that, if offered the choice in the early stages of a recovery between productivity improvements and increased job numbers, I would take increased job numbers, because of the considerable human damage and the potential serious long-term economic damage that high unemployment can cause. I am enormously proud of the record of the British business community in creating those jobs, and of the people who have got those jobs and are holding them. I agree that we want to make our economy more productive. We do that by having an open economy where we welcome investment, support enterprise and support business. The Labour party’s policy proposals on prices, incomes, new restrictions on foreign investment, higher taxes on business and a higher corporation tax are all the wrong approach and would make our economy less productive.

Several hon. Members: rose—

George Osborne: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) and then make some progress.

Henry Bellingham: Earlier my right hon. Friend mentioned Charles Clarke, who knows quite a lot about what is happening in Norfolk and will be aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 660 over the last year. That is 660 families with jobs, a wage packet and hope for the future. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of those jobs are either full time or in self-employment?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there has been a remarkable jobs story in Norfolk as well, supported by the economic investment we are putting into new roads into the county. I have spoken to the chamber of commerce there and seen its ideas for attracting more investment into King’s Lynn and other key centres, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on all he is doing to back business there.

Oliver Colvile: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his economic strategy has seen unemployment in my constituency fall by 25% over the last four years? The Government’s decision to grant a city deal to Plymouth will create 10,000 new jobs by releasing some of the land in the dockyard.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The city deal, which he championed and urged on us, has a real prospect of bringing more investment and jobs into Plymouth. It is great news that work is being created in that great city and I congratulate him on all the local leadership he is showing there.

Several hon. Members: rose—

George Osborne: I will take one more intervention from a Labour Member and then make some progress.

Debbie Abrahams: Before the Chancellor descends further into his self-congratulatory speech and quotes statistics about my constituency to me, will he confirm that the employment rate is still below pre-recession levels and that a third of the jobs in my constituency are below the living wage?

George Osborne: Well, yes, the employment rate is below what it was before the economy crashed and we had the deepest recession since the 1920s and ’30s, but the good news, as the hon. Lady will have noted, is that there has been a sharp rise in the employment rate in the last year—800,000 new jobs created. The employment rate now is very close to its pre-recession peak, so I would suggest that she should not make too many predictions on that front.
	I am absolutely explicit that I want to get the employment rate up. I want to ensure that our schools are providing kids with the right skills, that we are creating more apprenticeships—one of the great success stories of this Government—and that we have more students coming out of our universities with the right graduate qualifications, so that we get our employment rate up even higher and achieve the goal of full employment in this country.
	One of the risks that will face any economy—particularly one such as the United Kingdom’s, with a large number of financial services in it—is any risk from financial markets. As we begin to see the slow withdrawal of monetary stimulus here in the UK and in the United States, and with the eurozone heading in the other direction, we might expect to see an increase in market volatility. That is all the more reason why the financial markets in foreign currencies, commodities and fixed income should be fair and effective. Tonight at Mansion House and here in the House of Commons, I want to set out briefly the steps that the Governor of the Bank of England and I are taking.
	We will bring forward enhanced criminal sanctions to punish and deter market abuse, but we will not opt into European rules, instead developing our own tough domestic powers. We will extend the senior managers regime proposed by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards—so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)—so that it covers the branches of foreign banks. We will also use the legislation we asked Parliament to pass in the wake of the LIBOR scandal to regulate further benchmarks in areas such as foreign exchange, fixed income and commodities. The new review that the Governor and I are establishing, chaired by the former deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Minouche Shafik—now the deputy governor of the Bank of England—and involving the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority, will provide further recommendations.
	Let me be absolutely clear: the integrity of the City matters to the economy of Britain. Markets here set the interest rates for people’s mortgages, the exchange rates for our exports and holidays, and the commodity prices for the goods we buy. We are going to deal with abuses, tackle the unacceptable behaviour of the few and ensure that markets are fair for the many who depend on them. We are not going to wait for more financial scandals to hit; instead we are going to act now and get ahead. We will take these steps to build resilience in our financial markets and our economy.

Julian Brazier: I greatly welcome those steps. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that enforcement will be based on simple principles of integrity and not create a climate of box-ticking of the kind that we saw with the now discredited Financial Services Authority, which was introduced by the last Government?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that what we need in our regulation is the exercise of judgment, rather than just process. One of the biggest errors of judgment was the abolition of the Bank of England as an authority that would oversee systemic risks in our economy and monitor levels of debt, and the creation of the tripartite regime, which we have abolished.
	One of the new features of the financial regulation landscape is the Financial Policy Committee, which is the group, independent of the Government, that looks at systemic financial risks, seeks to spot asset booms and has the tools to do something about them—something that, sadly, was completely lacking six or seven years ago. We have given the Financial Policy Committee far-reaching powers over capital ratios and mortgage standards, with powers to recommend limits on loans-to-income and even loans-to-value. That is the answer to the question about housing and the impact of housing debt on our financial system and families. I am clear that the Bank of England should not hesitate to use those powers, and any others we make available, should it see serious risks emerging in the housing market. That is a fundamental improvement in the resilience of the British economy.
	I agree that we need more homes as well, and the changes to our planning system are now increasing housing supply. Planning permissions and starts are now at a six-year high. The fundamental answer to the challenge of the British housing market is to see more homes built. Frankly, I would ask the Labour party, which opposed the planning changes when they were introduced a couple of years ago, to reconsider its position and confirm that they will remain in place. And by the way, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman)—who I think sits on her party’s Front Bench—said that Labour should get rid of the Help to Buy scheme, let me tell her that it is helping families across the country, overwhelmingly outside the south-east of England, to buy homes that are well below the national average house price. I am proud that this Government are helping people with the aspiration of buying their own home and providing the support for families who can afford it to get on the housing ladder.

Edward Balls: May I ask for a clarification of what the Chancellor is announcing to the House today and at Mansion House later? He wrote to the Governor of the Bank of England setting the remit for the Financial Policy Committee as recently as March. The Governor of the Bank of England wrote back to the Chancellor with his comments on the remit on 31 March. Is the Chancellor now, a couple of months later, having to add to, revise or supplement that remit? Is that a reflection of the fact that there is widespread and growing concern, including in the Bank of England, that what is happening in the housing market is destabilising, and does he regret that he did not face up to these issues earlier?

George Osborne: What the remit that I sent to the Financial Policy Committee said is that we need to be vigilant about risks emerging in the housing market. Last week the IMF said very clearly that there is not a credit-fuelled boom today, but we need to be vigilant, and I completely agree with that. More than that, I have created—Parliament legislated for—the system of that vigilance. The Financial Policy Committee did not exist before this Government came to office; there was no such thing as the remit that the shadow Chancellor has just referred to. We have given the Financial Policy Committee tools to look at mortgage standards, alter capital ratios and make recommendations on loan-to-income ratios and loan-to-value ratios, and I am clear that it should not hesitate to use them if it judges that to be necessary. That message goes out loud and clear from this Dispatch Box and it will go out loud and clear at Mansion House tonight.

Mike Thornton: I wonder whether the Chancellor is aware that when I worked for Northern Rock, I used to visit Newcastle and we used to see members of the Financial Services Authority leaving the chief executive’s offices and thanking him for his advice on how to do their jobs.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend brings his experience to bear in the Chamber. Northern Rock was the epitome of what went wrong—the 125% mortgages. It is the important link between rising house prices and mortgages that families find unaffordable if prices fall or they lose work, and the risks to the balance sheets of banks that came together in a toxic combination in 2007 and 2008. The Financial Policy Committee exists to make sure that we spot those risks in advance.

Several hon. Members: rose—

George Osborne: Let me make a little progress, as I know many Members want to speak. I want to cover a couple of the key legislative measures in the Queen’s Speech.
	I hope that the Bill to support small businesses and enterprise will receive support from across the House, as it will help those small businesses with their exports, reduce tribunal delays and open up even more Government procurement to them. We are, of course, going to help smaller businesses—and indeed all businesses—by taking under-21-year-olds out of the jobs tax altogether. That is in stark contrast to the jobs tax plan that the Labour party is developing.
	Then there is the tax-free childcare Bill—a really important measure to help hard-working families. In this Parliament, we have already extended the free nursery care available to parents of three and four-year-olds to 15 hours. From this September, 260,000 two-year-olds from low-income families will be eligible for free hours as well. Now we are taking another big step forward in helping working parents. Once we pass this new Bill, all families with children under 12 will, in effect, be able to get tax relief for their child care costs—up to £2,000 of help every year for every child. That is a huge boost to working families in this country, and this tax-free child care is affordable only because of the difficult decisions we have taken to bring the public finances under control.

Andrew Love: The Chancellor mentioned help to small businesses, but surely the help they really need is an increase in net lending to them from the banking sector, yet it is
	continuing to fall. How does the Chancellor explain that in the light of the funding for lending scheme, which simply does not appear to be working?

George Osborne: Funding for lending is now, of course, skewed away from mortgages—a decision taken by the Governor of the Bank of England and me before Christmas—precisely to start to apply some macro-prudential controls to the housing market. It is heavily skewed towards small business lending in order to address the issue of an impaired banking system, still deeply damaged by what went on six or seven years ago. The good news is that a huge amount of progress has been made since this debate last year and since last year’s Mansion House speech; we are undertaking a major restructuring of the Royal Bank of Scotland and, of course, starting to return Lloyds to the private sector. All of that will help make sure that our financial system is functioning properly and supporting businesses that want to grow and expand.

Ian Lucas: Will the Chancellor give way?

George Osborne: Let me make this final point before taking another intervention.
	I want to conclude by mentioning a measure that the shadow Chancellor—or, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, which is pretty revealing—did not mention at all. I refer to the pensions tax Bill, which will give people real choices about what they do with their defined contribution pension pots, and ensure that they get free and impartial guidance on those choices. We have spent the last three months in consultation, and I have met pension providers and many consumer groups. The consultation closed yesterday, and I will announce next month the details of how the freedoms and the guidance will work. We will set out the implications for defined benefit pensions, too.
	We want an economy in which effort is rewarded and those who save are trusted with their pension savings in retirement. We will enshrine all this in law; it heralds a revolution in pensions based on this simple principle: “you earned it; you saved it; now you have control over your own money”. Because it is such a simple principle, because it involves trusting people and because that is popular with people, the Labour Opposition have not got a clue about how to respond to it. From the moment that the Leader of the Opposition rose to give his dismal, pre-scripted reply to the Budget, they have been completely pole-axed by it.

Ian Lucas: rose—

George Osborne: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me whether he will support this Bill in the Division Lobbies.

Ian Lucas: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I ran my own business in the 1980s, and I remember the pension mis-selling and how many people lost their life savings as a result of reckless Conservative legislation and a lack of proper advice. This is a very serious matter, so rather than taking cheap political pot shots, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what exactly will be the nature of the advice given to people about their life savings before he asks them to spend it?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think that the Chancellor has got the message.

George Osborne: Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, that was the definition of a cheap political pot shot, and it rather sums up the tone of Labour Members’ approach. They started with a whole spiel about new politics and having to engage with the disenchanted, but after only a few minutes, it has swiftly deteriorated.

Edward Balls: rose—

George Osborne: Let me directly answer the hon. Gentleman’s point and then I shall take a final intervention from the shadow Chancellor before winding up.
	We are very clear that we want impartial and free guidance—face to face if people want it. We are talking to consumer groups such as Which?, Saga, and Citizens Advice about how to ensure that we deliver such free and impartial advice through the industry and consumer groups all working together.

Edward Balls: We have welcomed annuities reform and the introduction of collective pension vehicles. The test for us is whether the sums will add up, whether it will cost more, whether it will work in a fair and equitable way and whether the advice and guidance will be sufficient. I put it to the Chancellor that this may be something on which we could try to get a cross-party consensus in the long term rather than play politics.

George Osborne: I certainly hope, in the spirit of new politics, that there will be agreement across the House and that the Labour party will support our reforms. There was no agreement on this issue when we were in opposition. My hon. Friends who were Opposition MPs at the time—when, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister—will remember that we tried time and again to get the Treasury to open up annuities and to remove the compulsory requirement to annuitise. We remember the private Member’s Bill proposed by David Curry—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) was involved, too—attempting to achieve this objective, with the Conservative party turning up en masse to try to deliver it. We tried. If the shadow Chancellor is telling me that has had a change of heart and supports this measure, I can say “all well and good”. Perhaps that will help to address the disillusionment of Labour supporters that he mentioned earlier—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor ends like he started. He wanted to give us a big new thing about new politics, but he cannot resist trading the blows across the Chamber.

Edward Balls: The point I made to the Chancellor in my speech was that there is a disillusionment across politics, incorporating Labour and Conservative voters, and that we need to face up to it collectively rather than just play partisan politics. That was my point.

George Osborne: I would argue that the best way to address people’s disillusionment is to create an economy that works for people and grows jobs for people. I enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s tour d’horizon of the global economy, and I certainly agree that the Google self-drive car will be an important intervention—and he will probably be one of the first customers for it.
	We passed a milestone this week when we learned that 2 million new jobs had been created by our economic plan. We saw new surveys this week showing Britain attracting investment from around the world. The IMF said we would have the fastest- growing major advanced economy in the world and confirmed that deficit reduction strategy at the heart of our approach is the anchor of stability. We saw again today that the shadow Chancellor and the Labour party would be a disaster for the British economy, with more borrowing, more spending, more taxes and a war on business. In this Queen’s Speech, we reject these disastrous policies. Instead, we deliver on the long-term economic plan that is turning Britain around and offers a brighter future for all. I urge the House to support the Queen’s Speech.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Many Members want to speak, so it would help to keep interventions brief. If Members continue to intervene, they will go to the bottom of the list. We are on a six-minute limit, but it will have to be reduced if we do not show consideration for others. Anything Members can do to shorten their speeches will be much appreciated.

Margaret Beckett: The kindest thing that can be said about this Queen’s Speech is that it is simply inadequate to address the problems which, sadly, our country and its people still face, and about which it is evident that the Government parties are still in denial.
	The Chancellor said in his speech that he had made the mistake of reading the record before coming to the House. I made the same mistake: I read the record of the Chancellor’s Budget speech on 22 June 2010. He said today that what we must now do is stick to our long-term economic plan, which is what Government Members continually say—they say it as if saying it were as good as having one—but today’s economy does not reflect the long-term economic plan that the Chancellor set out in 2010.
	The Chancellor said today that the Government were “holding out the prospect”. Well, they held it out then. According to that plan, by this year debt was supposed to have fallen as a percentage of GDP, and the structural current deficit should have been eliminated. The public sector borrowing requirement should be down to £37 billion, falling to £20 billion next year. Growth this year was then projected to be 2.7%, but the plan was for growth of well over 2% in 2011, 2012 and 2013. As we all know, that simply did not happen. In other words, far from sticking to a long-term plan that is now delivering, which the Chancellor described as the “inescapable truth”, the inescapable truth is that Government Members have seen their plan and their forecasts fall to pieces around their ears.

Therese Coffey: I do not recognise the picture that the right hon. Lady is painting, given the increased number of jobs and other improvements. Does she recall the statement by the Office for Budget Responsibility that the recession was even deeper than it had seemed to
	be when first analysed? That means that it has been even more difficult for us to fill the hole that was left by Labour and to achieve growth. That is finally under way, but the job is not yet done.

Margaret Beckett: I think the hon. Lady will find that the OBR’s argument does not account for the total discrepancy between what the Chancellor said would happen and what has actually happened. We have had the nonsense of Government Members claiming that we were wrong to say that their policies might curtail growth, when that is precisely what happened. As for the OBR, if the Chancellor is so proud of it—and I think that he has created a good institution—why does he not allow it to scrutinise our plans, rather than making up his own version?
	The Queen’s Speech demonstrates the Government’s utter failure to address the difficulties that people face. The eventual return to growth has been as welcome as it was long overdue, but it is seriously alarming that Government Members do not seem to recognise the great difficulties that still confront so many. Only yesterday, we learnt that Ofgem had written to the energy companies highlighting the fall in wholesale prices over the last 18 months or so, and asking them nicely if they ever intended to pass it on to their customers. Where is the legislative framework to underpin action to tackle the energy companies’ disregard for the interests of their customers?
	Where are the proposals for reform of the banks, which demonstrate almost daily that for them too it is back to business as before, bonuses and all? Why is there nothing in the Queen’s Speech to address either the decline in housing starts or the increasing pressure and insecurity experienced by many tenants? And why, oh why, have no steps been taken to ease the increasingly intolerable pressures on the many people who have been forced by circumstance to rely on benefits to make ends meet? So many of those people are in work, albeit work that is low paid and insecure.
	People with disabilities, in particular, are still being hit by the iniquitous bedroom tax. The Government must have been advised that people would not be able to move because there was not enough alternative accommodation. During the same week in which they introduced that tax, they cut taxes for those who were already the wealthiest.
	The most noticeable aspects of the Queen’s Speech are the measures that are not in it and should be. Some of its proposals merit a cautious welcome, although as yet, in many instances, we have only the headlines. However, I want to single out the issue of pensions. I am pleased that the Chancellor mentioned it. I urge caution on all Members, but especially Opposition Members, because in this regard the Conservative party has form. Annuities have long caused concern, although an answer has not been easy to find, but the more that I listened to the Chancellor talking about giving people control of their own money and about the exciting new freedoms that were on offer—which, according to him, were heralding a revolution—the more uncomfortable I became, because, like the Conservative party, I have been here before.
	It was in identical terms that the 1980s Tory Government sold so-called pension reforms to an unsuspecting public. That resulted in one of the greatest pension scandals of
	all time, the mis-selling of personal pensions. Shamelessly misleading advertising implied that if people left existing pension schemes and put their savings in the hands of the financial services experts, they could miraculously put less in and get more out. People were encouraged by the then Government to gamble with their retirement savings without their employers having to contribute, and without even the safety net of pooling their own risk—and it all ended in tears. I heard what the Chancellor said about the assurances that he had given and about whom he had consulted, and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider what he said in great detail. We have asked the Government to publish in full the assessment of the costs and risks of their proposal, but so far they have refused to do so. I hope that they soon will.
	I have noticed that there is an incentive for the Government in this proposal, over and above the well-being of pensioners. The Chancellor stands to gain a few billions of pounds in extra tax. So there is something in it for the Treasury—probably rather more than there is for pensioners, in the short term—and the most careful scrutiny of the details will be required.
	Over the past few days—and, today, in the excellent speech with which he opened the debate—the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), has drawn attention to our proposals to raise the minimum wage and encourage the use of the living wage so that work can be made to pay; to tackle the abuses of wage and employment law that enable employers to use immigrant labour to undercut the wages and conditions of others; to set up a British investment bank and regional banks to support small businesses, which—as was pointed out earlier—our existing banks are still failing to do; and to address the crises in housing and health care. We would have seen all those proposals in a Labour Queen’s Speech. There is much along those lines that the House and the Government should and could be doing, but clearly it will not be done under this Administration.

Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the House is very grateful to the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) for reminding us all of the magnitude of the fantastic challenge that the Government faced when they came to office in 2010. It is just a shame that neither she nor the shadow Chancellor seized the opportunity to apologise to the House and the nation for the catastrophic destruction of the public finances and the running up of a massive deficit.

Margaret Beckett: I have heard that argument in the House so many times. Indeed, the Chancellor used it today. However, there is a bit that I have missed: the bit where the right hon. Gentleman explained how the last Government also brought about the crashes in the United States and Japan, and in Spain and Italy and throughout the European Union. I am looking forward to hearing him give that explanation.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We need short interventions, and, in fairness, Members should not bait others who have just spoken. I do not think that that helps to ensure that everyone else will have a chance to speak.

Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to assist the right hon. Lady, who I know is very reasonable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just identified one of the causes of the problem that we faced, namely the Labour Government’s decision to remove responsibility for the supervision of the banks from the Bank of England. I know that that is the case, because I was an international banker myself. The Tory party warned the Labour Government that if they removed that responsibility from the Bank, there would be problems. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want to hear Sir Gerald, but I cannot hear him when Members are shouting him down.

Gerald Howarth: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Let me be the first Government Member to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on sticking to his guns, and on the long-term economic programme, which has unquestionably benefited the United Kingdom—not least my constituents in Aldershot, where unemployment has now fallen to 1.8%. We have done fantastically well, and, in my view, that was undoubtedly a factor in the Newark by-election success, on which I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends. There is no doubt that the sheer weight of Conservative effort helped, as, indeed, did the contribution made by Patrick Mercer, who was very popular in the constituency, and had done good work over 13 years.
	However, as the shadow Chancellor pointed out, we should not be lulled into a false sense of security. One of the key reasons for UKIP’s success is that it has homed in on the public’s rising concern about immigration. That concern is not new; it has existed since the 1960s. What is new is that while there was an understandable reluctance to vote for the British National party, no such inihibitions apply to UKIP.
	For 50 years, those of us who have expressed concern about the impact of mass immigration on our country have been reviled and denounced as racist. All argument was effectively closed down, as perfectly decent people expressing perfectly reasonable fears were intimidated into remaining publicly silent.
	Things have now changed, however. People feel that at last they can break free from the shackles of political correctness in which they have been chained. It is no longer racist to want to preserve our British way of life, our religion and our culture; it is not racist to express pride in our nation’s history and, indeed, in our imperial past.
	It is not just the Conservative party that has been affected by the public’s concerns, as the shadow Chancellor’s comments again made clear. Labour has seen white working-class support desert to UKIP. Furthermore, many of those who have arrived from abroad and have integrated into our society are also concerned about the continuing flows of migration.
	The main parties have to recognise the effect that this unprecedented tidal wave of migration has had on the UK, including our economy. Of course migration has not been without its benefits, some of which are only too evident on the Benches around us here, and companies such as Tata have made, and continue to make, a very valuable contribution. However, this week’s Ofsted report on Birmingham schools has revealed the extent to which
	people newly arrived here not only reject our values and customs, but want to impose their own on the rest of us. I have a very clear message for them: this is a Christian country, a tolerant country, we speak English, we shake hands with ladies, and open facial recognition is a key part of our culture. If they find that offensive, they should please feel free to leave and move to a country that is more to their liking—for there are plenty of repressive regimes around the world that clearly are more to the liking of people like that. As the T-shirt worn by a young man whom I saw on the underground earlier this week said: “Speak in English; Think in English; Dream in English”. I thought that was rather good advice to a lot of people in our country.
	What we all need to understand is that it is numbers that are the issue. As that excellent organisation MigrationWatch has pointed out, between 1951 and 1991 the population born overseas grew by less than 2 million, yet after the election of the Labour Government in 1997 the scale of immigration increased to a level without historical precedent. Between 1991 and 2011, the foreign-born population more than doubled, increasing by 4 million. Much of this was deliberately encouraged by the Blair Government, partly, as we were helpfully told by a Labour speechwriter, Mr Andrew Neather, to rub the noses of the right in diversity.
	All this has had an impact on our country. The Prime Minister has been at the forefront of the campaign to denounce the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the UK, but there are practical challenges, too. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor mentioned the housing issue. We need to build a new home every seven minutes just to accommodate new migrants to this country. England is already the most crowded country in Europe, yet unless tougher action is taken the population will grow by 7 million in the next 15 years, 5 million of which will be attributable to immigration, which is the equivalent of the towns and cities of Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow and Manchester.

Henry Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government have made very significant progress in reducing migration into the UK from outside the EU? Indeed, there have been a number of big successes in that regard. However, does he also agree that the time has now come for the Governments of all countries in the EU to look again at the absolute free movement of people for jobs across the EU? The only way we can solve this problem and bring migration into some form of balance is by looking at migration from the EU as well.

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend, with whom I have the privilege of sharing adjoining offices in Portcullis house, is entirely right. This Government have set about trying to tackle migration, not least by dealing with the legacy left by the previous Government, and we have tackled non-EU migration. My hon. Friend is right to alert the House to the extent to which our membership of the EU is inhibiting our ability to do something about that other aspect of migration, however, and I have a proposal, which I will make in winding up my contribution.
	Labour’s failure to apologise for inflicting this policy on the nation, together with its failure to apologise for the destruction of the public finances, which I mentioned earlier, means it is wholly unfit to return to office. That brings me to the topic of the next Queen’s Speech. I hope with all my heart that that will be prepared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) as leader of the Conservative party, elected with a clear working majority in this place. This country absolutely needs that. We cannot afford to go back to the policies of tax and spend, and running up yet more debt, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has reminded us again today. We have to keep reminding the British people that that is what Labour did in office and it has not yet recanted. We therefore must do our duty to the British people, which is to be returned with a clear working majority.
	To get to that happy position, however, we need to convince the public that we will build on the existing measures we have put in place to contain inward migration, particularly from less affluent EU countries. We must act now. The Government should accept the unanimous recommendation of the European Scrutiny Committee to disapply the European Communities Act 1972 in relation to specific EU legislation, not least so that this Parliament can once again become sovereign and take swift action to recover control of our borders and reduce the level of burdensome regulation being imposed on us externally. If the European Court of Justice does not like that, then tough; the British people certainly will.

Anne McGuire: It is a privilege to speak in this debate. This is the last opportunity I will have to speak in a Queen’s Speech debate as a Member of this House. I have to say, however, that the Queen’s Speech we heard last week was not nearly as exciting as the first Queen’s Speech I heard in this House in 1997.
	I want to pick up on a few of the comments that have been bandied around by those on the Government Benches, not least the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who I have the pleasure, of course, of following. “Tax and spend” is one comment they throw about, but they do not say what that actually means. We can look around our country and our individual constituencies and see what the spend was all about. It was about replacing schools that had not been looked after for tens of years. Many of our schools were Victorian-built, and many of our hospitals had been built at the end of the 19th century, never mind the 20th century.

Robert Flello: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Anne McGuire: Very briefly, as I want to take Mr Speaker’s advice.

Robert Flello: I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said, but she will also remember, as I do, Conservative Members standing up time and again and calling for schools and hospitals in their constituencies, and how they have the shameless gall to say otherwise is beyond me.

Anne McGuire: I remember it well, and there is now the mirror image of that: they are in government now, and they are calling for even more expenditure in their individual constituencies. That certainly puts a whole new slant on “Think nationally—or globally—and act locally.” It is almost as though there is no connect between the two.
	I first want to welcome two elements of the Queen’s Speech, however. One is the commitment to continue to implement new powers for the Scottish Parliament, which I hope will be done within the context of a United Kingdom—the “No” badge I am wearing today has absolutely nothing to do with me not wanting anybody here to speak to me.
	I also welcome the increased penalties for those not paying the national minimum wage, but I say to the Government that it is one thing to increase penalties, but it is another thing actually to enforce the law. There is absolutely no point in increasing the penalties if there is not going to be the enforcement welly behind the national minimum wage to tackle employers who are behaving illegally.
	I want to concentrate on a couple of areas. One is zero-hours contracts, which the Chancellor blithely dismissed. Yes, zero-hours contracts have, of course, been with us for a long time, and, yes, they can in some circumstances be a useful resource in managing a work force, but the difference between what happened in the past and what is happening now is that zero-hours contracts have effectively become part of the mainstream in how our employment market is operating.
	Let us consider a couple of companies that have a presence in most of our areas. Sports Direct has 23,000 workers, and 20,000 of them are on zero-hours contracts. That is 86% of its work force. That is not about Sports Direct having flexibility. Some 80% of Wetherspoon staff are on zero-hours contracts, too. That is not just about managing the bulges in customer numbers at certain times of the day or at the weekend, but is a policy decision by those companies to use zero-hours contracts as an employment tool. What is even worse is that having 1 million or so workers on zero-hours contracts helps to disguise the unemployment figures—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) talking to himself or does he want to intervene on me?

Andrew Griffiths: The right hon. Lady condemns companies that employ people on zero-hours contracts, but will she condemn the more than 60 Labour MPs who also do so?

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman was obviously so busy talking to himself that he did not hear what I was saying, which was that there are instances in which zero-hours contracts might well be suitable. However, a zero-hours contract approach is now being embedded in our mainstream way of employing people. That stokes up people’s uncertainty about their income, creates instability in their lives and leaves them unable to get finance, even for rented accommodation. Those who think that these contracts provide numerous hours’ work each week should note that, according to the Office for National Statistics, an individual who worked for just one hour within its survey period was considered to be employed. The attractive mirror image to this situation for the Government is that they can describe
	those people as having come off the unemployment register, creating a false figure for the unemployment in our constituencies. The previous Tory Government used to shunt people on to incapacity benefit. The present Government are using zero-hours contracts in much the same way.
	The second issue that I want to address is how people can afford housing in the present environment. According to the Scottish Parliament information unit, the average pay in Scotland is £26,472. The average price for a semi-detached house in my constituency is £140,000. I know that Members who represent constituencies in the south of England might think that that is not a high price, but we must ask ourselves how on earth people are going to get a mortgage or other finance for such a house on a salary of around £26,000 a year? It just does not compute. In my area, we have strong tourist accommodation and food industries, in which the average wages have actually dropped. They now average £10,558 a year.
	Taking all those factors together, we find a situation in which many people in this country do not feel that they are benefiting from the rosy picture painted by the Chancellor earlier. We do not have to move far from this Chamber to find evidence of that. I wonder how many of us think about how our low-paid workers in the House of Commons dining rooms or in the Tea Room are even managing to get into work. Some of them are on zero-hours contracts. We need to look at the long-term implications for those people.
	This Queen’s Speech is, I hope, the last under this Government. I also hope that it predates a new Queen’s Speech after the general election under a Labour Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). I can find no better description of the Conservatives than that used by Disraeli. He said of Conservatism that it
	“offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future.”
	This Queen’s Speech fulfils both those criteria.

Roger Williams: I welcome the Queen’s Speech. In particular, I welcome the proposals giving the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs powers to introduce regulations to hold direct elections in national parks in England. Why do I think this is important? I speak from some experience as I was the chairman of the Brecon Beacons national park. The Bill refers to England, but the governance of national parks in England is very similar to that in Wales. At the moment, all members of national park authorities are appointed, not elected. This results in a democratic deficit. Members appointed by the Secretary of State represent the national interest—I can understand that—but members appointed by local authorities, often on a political basis, sometimes do not even represent wards in the national parks. Elections for local authority councillors do not often feature national park issues.
	The national parks that were set up in Scotland some time after those in England and Wales do have direct elections for a proportion of the members of national park authorities. The elections have been well contested, with good turnouts, and have proved popular; but more importantly, they give people a chance to debate national park matters during a democratic process.
	I believe that this proposal will strengthen the case for national parks and their purposes. The national park establishment believes that it will bring forward anti-national park candidates. It might do that, but I believe that most people who live in national parks support the principle, but wish to express a view on how their services should be delivered. This Bill will be good for national parks and for the people who live in them.
	I also welcome the announcement in the Queen’s Speech that, from 2016, all new homes will be required to meet a zero-carbon standard. However, that will not deal with the existing housing stock. In constituencies such as mine, rural fuel poverty is a serious issue that can have terrible health impacts. I had hoped that new proposals would have been included to help people who are struggling with fuel bills and fuel poverty by improving our current housing stock.
	The energy bill revolution has repeatedly shown that investment in a major home energy efficiency programme would deliver better economic outcomes than almost all other forms of investment. Improving homes through insulation would help to bring down people’s energy costs. It would help to keep their homes warmer and have major health and environmental benefits. Improving the quality and efficiency of our homes must be one of our top priorities if we are to tackle the growing issue of fuel poverty. We must recognise the economic, social and environmental benefits of improving our homes and establish the idea that creating homes capable of keeping people warm and healthy is the most vital infrastructure investment we can make. I trust that such a provision will appear in the infrastructure Bill.
	On 28 November 2012, I congratulated the Government on introducing regulations to protect wild animals in travelling circuses and asked the Prime Minister whether he would commit to introducing a ban in this Parliament. He responded by saying:
	“It is our intention to do just that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the fact that we have changed the regulations in advance of legislation, so that the clearly expressed will of this House can be met.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 219.]
	Given that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, the Captive Animals Protection Society and Animal Defenders International all support a complete ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, it is surely time finally to pass legislation on this issue. Twenty-seven other countries have introduced some form of prohibition on the use of wild animals in circuses, including half of the EU countries. Given the widespread support for a ban, I was concerned that there was no mention of it in the Queen’s Speech. I hope that other Members will support me in asking the Government to introduce this uncontroversial, and long overdue, legislation for a complete ban.
	In 2012, the Independent Panel on Forestry published its final report to the Government on the future of England’s forests and woodlands. It called for our forests and woodlands to be revalued to take into account all the services they provide. Forests are particularly important for the local economy in rural areas. The panel’s research showed that our forests are the
	“single largest provider of outdoor leisure and recreation”,
	the single largest timber producer, and a vital habitat for wildlife. The report estimated that our forests
	“are producing annual returns on investment estimated at £400 million”.
	It suggested that the public forest estate should be defined in law as land held in trust for the nation. The Government’s response supported the suggestions, but legislation has yet to materialise. I am sure that other hon. Members would agree that action is now needed to ensure that our forests are protected for generations to come.

Jack Straw: We heard a vigorous defence of the Queen’s Speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so it is surprising that so many Conservative Members have voted with their feet and emptied their side of the Chamber, obviously lacking the confidence to speak up in favour of their own Chancellor.
	A central part of the Government’s defence of their economic policies is the challenge they make to the competence of and decisions taken by Labour Governments between 1997 and 2010. I was privileged to be a senior member of the Labour Government throughout the term and I am proud of their achievements. As John Major once shrewdly observed, the only people who never make mistakes are those who never make decisions. No more than any Government, we did not get all our judgments right, but overall I believe we made the correct judgments, including on the economy. The criticism the current Government make of us is not just wide of the mark; it fails to take account of the contradictory policy positions they were adopting at the time.
	The first charge the Chancellor has often made is that the Labour Government did not fix the roof when the sun was shining, but we did—we had to. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) mentioned, one of the scandals of the Thatcher and Major Governments was their palpable neglect of public services. There were hospitals and schools with leaking roofs and buckets everywhere. There were schools where the sun could literally be seen through the open roof. There is not a Conservative constituency in the country where the roofs of its schools and hospitals were not fixed by the last Labour Government, and no Conservative MP complained about that spending at the time.
	That brings me to my second point. I have been through what Conservative shadow Chancellors were saying in response to the Budgets and spending reviews between 2000 and 2010. Yes, there are plenty of passages of criticism, in small print, about the levels of borrowing and taxation to which the Conservatives could, and do, point, but if we look at what they were saying about the spending plans that were leading to all those improvements in their constituencies, we find that a very different story emerges. In 2004, they published a medium-term economic strategy, setting out their plans for the years to 2011-12. The Institute for Fiscal Studies published its own commentary on that, saying that if the Conservatives were to win the forthcoming general election, spending would
	“still be higher”
	under the Conservative plans
	“than it was in every year of Labour’s first term”.
	At the 2005 general election, the Conservatives’ main pitch, in the face of Labour criticism, was to reassure voters that no significant cuts would take place if they were elected. The Economist newspaper for 14 April 2005 published a major article under the heading “Much ado about nothing: The Conservatives’ spending plans are strikingly similar to Labour’s”. After the 2005 election, the reassurance that the Conservatives would not be cutting public spending continued, but in even more categorical terms. On 3 September 2007, the “ConservativeHome” website proclaimed:
	“Tories will match Labour’s spending plans for the next three years”.
	It highlighted an article in The Times of the same date, written by the then shadow Chancellor, which stated:
	“I can confirm for the first time”—
	he solemnly intoned—
	“that a Conservative Government will adopt”
	the Labour Government’s spending totals for the years 2008-09 to 2010-11.

Robert Flello: Does my right hon. Friend also recall that at the same time the Conservatives, to a person, were calling on the then Labour Government to weaken the oversight and weaken the regulation of the banks to allow them greater freedom?

Jack Straw: I absolutely confirm that. As we have accepted, we did not regulate the banks and other financial institutes sufficiently, but the Conservatives at the time were demanding, in this Chamber and outside it, not more regulation but less. Just in case readers did not get the point of the then shadow Chancellor’s article in The Times in September 2007, its headline was “Tories cutting services? That’s a pack of lies”. All the plans for the economy—those of the Conservatives, as much as those of Labour—were knocked badly off course by the global financial crisis. But for all the insinuations we now hear about how Labour ignored the warning signs, there is not a line—not a word—of such predictions in that article, nor anywhere else in what Conservatives were saying at the time.
	The Chancellor talks today of Britain’s recovery, and I am delighted that output, after the longest recession in modern history, is now close to where it was six years ago. But although he will not do this, future economic historians will, I believe, judge that part of the reason for the recovery was the wise decisions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let it also be remembered that, for all the Conservative efforts to rewrite history now, the average level of debt to GDP under Labour was below that of the preceding Conservative Governments and below international averages, not only for the 11 years before the recession took hold, but even when our last two years in power are included. We fixed the roofs, for both sun and storms. By contrast, the Conservatives then were calling simultaneously for lower taxation and lower borrowing but the same spending. How on earth did they think those sums would ever add up?

Edward Leigh: The whole House has great respect for the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who, as always, was careful to
	acknowledge that the previous Labour Government did make some mistakes. One of those has been all over the newspapers this morning. It was a decision that he was closely involved in and that I voted against: the decision to invade Iraq. That has proved to be one of the single most disastrous decisions ever made in foreign policy, and we have reduced that country to chaos. There are also lessons to be learned for the future, when next we think of involving ourselves in foreign countries with military ventures, whether in Ukraine or Syria.
	The right hon. Gentleman was also generous in his description of the very difficult economic decisions that both Governments have grappled with. Of course he is right to say that the roof has to be fixed, but I am sure he would accept it when I say, as a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, that there were productivity declines in areas such as the NHS and that extraordinary waste was involved in the rapid increases in expenditure, particularly on health and education. I am sure that both Governments have a lot to learn about that. I agree with him that we were probably wrong to agree to commit ourselves to accepting Labour’s spending plans, which were too high, and I have consistently argued that we should have addressed the deficit even quicker. It is a matter of regret that we are still spending more than ever before. That highlights the key challenge that both parties face: we have to keep addressing this deficit.
	The current Government are winning the economic argument because there remains a lack of coherence in Labour’s spending plans. The whole country realises that there has been this monumental waste and the Government are addressing it. Perhaps we could have done more and we could have done it in a better way, but we are seeking to address it. This Labour Opposition, unlike the Labour Opposition before 1997, who accepted our spending plans before 1997, do not apparently have a coherent economic message to address that. We know that elections are won on the economy.
	At the moment, we cannot deny that 2 million extra jobs have been created in the private sector, and I have to say, following an intervention from the Opposition Benches, that they have not all come from ex-members of the Bullingdon club. There are a lot of ordinary people who are getting these jobs. The Opposition have to address that problem, and we have to concentrate on the economy. It was significant and a bit of an innovation that, in the Gracious Speech, the Queen often mentioned the economy.

Jack Straw: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for his generosity towards me. Yes, of course I accept the 2 million figure that he mentioned, but does he acknowledge that a significant element of that 2 million, whether we like it or not, is composed of those migrants who have come in, about which he so much complains?

Edward Leigh: Yes, of course I acknowledge that, but the point I want to make is that it is by concentrating on the economy during the last year of this Government that we will establish our credibility as a party of government. What worries me is that although there is so much in this Queen’s Speech that is excellent, especially the Bill dealing with pensions, we still sometimes forget the essential lesson that, as a Conservative party and a Conservative Government, where we do conservative
	things and address the economy in a conservative way, we win. Where we indulge in modernising gimmicks, we stumble and start to lose. Sometimes, we forget that. When we do conservative things, such as cutting the deficit, introducing a benefit cap and attempting—not enough—to deal with immigration, we win.
	I am still worried about a couple of things in the Queen’s Speech. Is it really essential, when we are trying to address record spending and difficulties in the economy, to start talking about eradicating plastic bags in supermarkets? Is that a priority? Is it essential to start talking about the recall of MPs? It may at first sight be populist and popular, but it is very difficult to administer and probably will not solve any problems. For centuries, rogue MPs have consistently been kicked out of this place, so let us concentrate on the economy.

Mark Hendrick: By modernising, which the hon. Gentleman is very much against, does he mean reneging on the pledge to commit 0.7% of the gross national product to international aid, which was a manifesto promise of the three major parties in this country?

Edward Leigh: That is a manifesto promise. My views on that are well known. I have two daughters working in international development in Africa, and I am proud of the efforts that we have made on international aid. I am totally committed to spending properly on international aid, but the Department for International Development, like every other Department, must spend what we can afford to spend and what we need to spend. Frankly, it is somewhat economically illiterate to insist by legislation or by other means that a Department sets a fixed percentage of GNP on aid, health or anything else. What happens if there is a recession and the economy contracts? We could end up spending less on aid. I have consistently made that argument, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
	My point is that we must concentrate on the economy. We still face enormous challenges. It is very difficult to get to grips with some of these challenges while we are in a coalition Government. A lot has been made about immigration in this debate. The truth is that we have made a mistake—the shadow Chancellor was generous enough in response to my intervention to accept that—in allowing such high immigration from eastern Europe. We all accept that, especially when economies diverge so greatly, as happens between Bulgaria and Romania and ours. It cannot be accepted in the long term that there should be an untrammelled right of immigration from poorly performing economies into our own. We just have to accept that. Therefore, the European Union rules on this must be reformed. I should like to see legislation put in place, but it will not be possible while we are in a coalition.
	We also have to address the problem of the referendum. The British people deserve a referendum. Nobody under the age of 55 has been given a referendum. It is virtually impossible to get a referendum Bill through via the private Member’s procedure. The referendum Bill should be in the Queen’s Speech. It should be a Government Bill. I say to my hon. Friends the Liberal Democrats, who are sitting in front of me, that they cannot deny the right of the British people to have a choice.
	We need to address the concept of human rights. I am a great supporter of the Council of Europe and all its work; I am a member of it. The fact is that we cannot continue to have a proactive European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is defeating the efforts of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and many others to deal with terrorism. There is much more that we need to do, which is why, for all that the coalition has achieved, we must get a clear result at the next general election. I hope from the bottom of my heart that it is a Conservative victory, so that we can address the very serious problems that still afflict our nation.

Stewart Hosie: The Queen’s Speech said that the stated objective of this legislative programme was to build a stronger economy. It said that it was to strengthen the economy. The Prime Minister used many of the same phrases in his speech last week, and spoke again, as the Chancellor did today, about this fabled long-term economic plan, which is a bit like a fabled unicorn; everybody knows what is meant, but no one has ever seen one. This long-term economic plan is much the same. Anyone with any common sense would assume that a long-term economic plan was predicated on substantial above-trend growth, yet the word “growth” did not appear once in the Queen’s Speech. Indeed, the Prime Minister only uttered it twice: once to chide the leader of the Labour party, not unreasonably, and another time in response to an intervention from his own side. Why the coyness? Where is the plan for real growth in the economy? When one looks at what is proposed in this legislative programme and at what has come before, particularly in the Budget, one can see that, at its heart, this is still an austerity Government. Yes, there are some helpful Bills, such as the national insurance contributions Bill and, potentially, the small business, enterprise and employment Bill, but there is nothing that anyone can point to and say, “That will make a real difference in delivering growth in the economy.” Perhaps the Government think that mining tunnels under people’s homes without permission to carry fracked gas qualifies as a growth measure.
	Why are the Government so coy? Why are they giving us this convoluted formulation of words about long-term plans and a focus on a very narrow, although helpful, policy about national insurance? It is because they have failed and they know it. Nothing the Government said last week or this week changes the underlying direction of travel or the underlying shape of the economy as described to us in the Red Book only a few months ago.

Therese Coffey: I am really interested in the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. The International Monetary Fund has confirmed that we are the fastest growing country in the G7. We have seen growth in all sectors of the economy in the past year. That must be welcomed. There is no unicorn. The only unicorn is the Scottish National party’s claims that Scotland will be better off out of the UK.

Stewart Hosie: That is because we would be. Although I welcome the limited growth that we have had, the actions taken by this Government since the last election stifled and strangled the recovery for some years, and that is the underlying problem with their plan.
	Let me take Scotland as an example. What the Government are proposing—this was before the Budget—is an 11% fiscal expenditure cut, a 27% cut in capital and a real terms 9.9% cut in the overall budget. This year’s Budget made that position worse, and that applies to spending Departments throughout the UK. Nothing in the Queen’s Speech changes that. Nor does it change the fact that the Chancellor told us that for 2013-14, the current account deficit would be down to 2.3% of GDP, borrowing would be reduced to £60 billion and the net debt would be at 70% of GDP. He was forced to tell us this year that the current account deficit was higher, borrowing was actually £95.5 billion and the net debt was 75% of GDP. The short-term metrics were wrong.
	What about the big targets the Chancellor set for himself? They were that the debt would begin to fall as a share of GDP by this year, that the current account would be in balance next year and that the same year borrowing would be down to £20 billion. Presumably, that is what the Prime Minister meant by financial security. Of course, as we know—nothing in the Queen’s Speech changes this—the debt will not fall until 2016-17, two years late. The current account will not be back in the black until 2017-18, two years late. Public sector net borrowing in 2015-16 will not be £20 billion but £68 billion, three and a half times higher.
	Although the limited recovery we have seen in the past year is of course to be welcomed—this directly answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)—not a single one of the Chancellor’s key targets has been met and his actions, as this is an austerity Government, stifled growth and delayed recovery year-on-year. No amount of convoluted formulations or warm words about long-term economic plans can change that.
	What are the Government planning? It is there in black and white in the Red Book, on page 20 for anybody who wants to have a look. There will be a discretionary consolidation—that is cuts, and tax rises—next year to the tune of £126 billion. That is £2,000 per person in tax rises and cuts. That is what they are planning and that is what they have signed up to.

Ann McKechin: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comments on achieving growth. Presumably the skill base would need to be increased, so I take it that he agrees that cutting the college budget by £50 million would not be the way to achieve sustainable growth.

Stewart Hosie: When it comes to improving education, having a record number of Scots in full-time college places is excellent; having 25,000 to 26,000 Scots starting apprenticeships every year is first class; having 32,000 Scots start university this year is the way to proceed; and having all the school exam results improve in the way they have is probably a really good start. If the hon. Lady is saying that we can do more and can do better, of course we can—any Government can—but let us not talk down success, particularly when we are trying to hold this Government to account.
	The point that I was making is that what we have is not a long-term economic plan. It is certainly not sustainable and it is certainly not a recipe for the growth the economy needs. It is just more Liberal and Tory austerity. It is the same plan that has seen this Government
	fail on their short-term and long-term targets so far and that will fail again. If it is about financial security, there is no evidence that it will succeed. If it is about growth, the Government are not even talking about that. If it is about delivering on the needs and ambitions of the people, it is woefully inadequate. As the discretionary consolidation laid out in black and white in the Red Book is predicated on a ratio of cuts to tax rises of 4:1, we do not have a long-term economic plan but a Tory Government who seem determined once again to try to balance the books on the backs of the poor. That is not a long-term economic plan; that is a disgrace.

Andrew Griffiths: I am delighted to take part in this important debate on the Queen’s Speech and to congratulate the Chancellor on what he has done for our economy in the United Kingdom and particularly for the economy in Burton. I take part in the debate because I was urged to do so by one of my constituents at a thriving Burton business club lunch recently. He said to me, “Andrew, will you go into the Chamber and urge George to carry on with his long-term economic plan. Will you tell him not to listen to all that Balls?” I assume that he was talking about the shadow Chancellor.
	My constituent was absolutely right, because the Government’s long-term economic plan is working for my constituents and my businesses in Burton and Uttoxeter. When I spoke to those entrepreneurs and small business men and women at Burton business club, they told me about the confidence they have in our economy. They have full order books, they are taking on new employees and they are optimistic about the future for their businesses and for our economy. If that is the case, we must continue with our long-term economic plan because in Burton it is working.
	Since I became the Member of Parliament for Burton, we have seen unemployment reduce by 43%. Today’s Opposition amendment talks about opportunities for young people, but I talk about the 1,100 apprenticeships that young people in my constituency have started as a result of the policies of this Government. The Opposition talk about the need to help people in poverty, but I talk about the 900 families who now have the security of a job as a result of the policies of this Government. The plan is working in Burton.
	Obviously, this debate is on the economy and I want to touch on a particular issue to do with that and with the Queen’s Speech, and that is the 900,000 people employed in the beer and pub trade. I come from the home of Britain’s brewing industry where 4,000 people are employed in beer and pubs, so this issue is hugely important for the families that rely on that important industry and not just for those who enjoy great British beer and our community pubs. I am very pleased to see in the Queen’s Speech legislation to protect our publicans up and down the country, as any Members on both sides of the House have voiced their concerns about how pubcos have treated some of our landlords. I was one of those who stood up and spoke about self-regulation, and I have to admit that I was wrong. The need for legislation has been demonstrated and I am pleased that the Government have come up with a proposal that will protect publicans and bring real transparency and openness into the system. Our pub industry will flourish as a result.
	I am also pleased that Ministers recognise the dangers in the proposal for a free-of-tie option. As the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills economic report by London Economics proved, that would have closed almost 2,000 pubs virtually overnight. I am pleased that a statutory code and a regulator will give real protection to landlords and publicans, but I have some concerns. It has always been the stated aim of this Government to cut red tape and regulation, with the one in, two out rule, and I hope that they will bear that in mind when they consider the proposed costs of the adjudicator. Self-regulation costs the industry about £100,000 a year, but it is estimated that the proposal for the adjudicator will cost £5 million a year, which will be funded by a levy on the industry. We must be careful that in our desire to protect those publicans we do not set up a quango that will end up costing the industry and that will be over-burdensome.
	As the Member of Parliament for Burton, where Marston’s is based, I am also concerned that its franchisees will be caught up in this. I urge the Government to reconsider whether this legislation is aimed at capturing the franchise model. It is worth while thinking about that. I am also grateful that the Government chose not to accept the proposal for a mandatory guest beer. We all recognise the concerns of SIBA, the Society of Independent Brewers, and lots of small breweries that that proposal would have hit the cask ales and Britain’s smaller breweries, and that we would have seen imported foreign lagers as the guest ale.
	I commend the Government for this Bill and hope that we can see it speedily enacted without too much meddling or interference to damage it. As a result, publicans, the British beer industry and the British pub industry will thrive across the country.

Debbie Abrahams: I found the reference in the Queen’s Speech to the Government continuing
	“to build a stronger economy and a fairer society”
	absolutely incredible. It assumes that we already have a stronger economy and a fairer society, and we patently do not. We have had the worst economic recovery in 100 years. After three years where the economy flatlined, the recovery is still very fragile. We need 1.6% growth each quarter to catch up to the growth we had at the end of 2010.
	What is growth based on? Once again, we are seeing the start of a housing bubble, driven by the Government’s policies, and an increase in household debt, which was up to £2.9 billion in March this year. The Tories’ 2010 manifesto stated:
	“A sustainable recovery must be driven by growth in exports”.
	Absolutely. Who would disagree with that? But the Government have not enabled that to happen. The trade figures remain in the red—by £22.4 billion in quarter 4 last year, which is equivalent to 5.4% of GDP. By their own measures, the Government are failing. Related to that, UK productivity is the second lowest in the G7 and 20% lower than the G7 average. That is the widest gap since 1992 and reflects a massive fall in non-financial investment.
	Small businesses, which I have been campaigning for and championing since I entered the House three years ago and which employ nearly half the work force, are still feeling the pinch. The Federation of Small Businesses survey shows that access to finance and late payments are still the two biggest issues, with £30.2 billion owed to them in late payments. Although I recognise that the Government have finally responded to the issues that my inquiry on late payments identified last year and taken up some of my recommendations, it is likely that the measures will relate only to the public sector. That is not good enough and does not go far enough. We need to ensure that the Government are standing up to big businesses and doing the right thing. If they do not, we will.
	Then, of course, we had the Government’s arrogance about what they would do about public borrowing. They claimed that they would clear the deficit by 2015, but we are we are not even halfway there yet, and they are still borrowing £190 billion more than they planned.
	Associated with the fragile recovery are the effects on unemployment and employment. The unemployment rate is above pre-recession levels, and employment rates are below pre-recession levels. I still have major issues on how the figures are distorted by the inappropriate sanctioning that is a policy in the Department for Work and Pensions.

Sheila Gilmore: Does my hon. Friend share my concern—it was one of the points I wanted to raise with the Chancellor when I was attempting to intervene on him—that more than 1 million people who are unemployed do not appear on the claimant count of which he is so proud? They represent more than 47% of the total number of the unemployed. There appears to be no knowledge of what is happening with these individuals and why they are finding it so difficult to get jobs. It clearly cannot be benefits dependency, because they are not on benefits.

Debbie Abrahams: Absolutely. My hon. Friend highlights another issue in how information on claimants and people not receiving payments is being missed. We should be doing as much as we can to expose those issues.
	I mentioned the employment rate still being below pre-recession levels. The jobs that have been created since 2010 tend to be insecure, part time, low paid and on zero-hours contracts. The number of people on short-term contracts has increased by 20 times since 2010 to 1.65 million, with 655,000 of those involuntary. Increases in the number of temporary jobs account for more than half the rise in employment. Nearly one in five, or 1.46 million people, work part time because they cannot get full-time work. That is the highest underemployment since 1992. Four out of five new jobs, and one in three of those in Oldham, pay below the living wage.
	Another issue is the geographical spread of the so-called recovery. Since 2010, 79% of new jobs have been created in London, with another 10% in nine urban centres outside London.
	In the limited time available, I want to talk about the inequalities this Government are presiding over. All those employment and unemployment effects are happening at a time when the Government have made specific
	policy decisions on increasing the top rate of tax for people with incomes of more £150,000, but average wages are down £1,600 a year. The analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the net effect of tax and benefit changes for an average family is a loss of more than £900 since 2010, while bank bonuses have soared by 83% and top-to-bottom pay ratios in the FTSE 100 stand at 300:1.
	We are already seeing the impact in access to food banks: this week’s Oxfam report, “Below the Breadline”, shows that 20,247,042 meals were given to people in food poverty in 2013-14 by the three main food aid providers—a 54% increase on 2012. Another recent Oxfam report, “A Tale of Two Britains”, highlighted the growing gap between rich and poor, with five of the richest families in the UK wealthier than the bottom 20%, or 12.6 million. That follows a raft of other reports—for example, from the Equality Trust.
	The gap matters—it really does. It matters because, as overwhelming evidence shows, society as a whole benefits from being fairer and more equal in areas ranging from life expectancy and mental health to educational attainment, social cohesion and social mobility. It is worrying that we are seeing further increases in premature deaths in deprived areas compared with more affluent ones. According to a report published in May, people in Manchester are twice as likely to die early as people in Wokingham, yet as I mentioned in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, last December the Government scrapped the health inequalities formula that Labour introduced in office to ensure that NHS resources were allocated according to need, and which the analysis proves has been effective.
	A fairer, more equal society also benefits our economy. Again, there is overwhelming evidence from a range of sources that inequality causes financial instability, undermines productivity and retards growth.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Eleanor Laing: Order. It will be obvious to the hon. Members in the Chamber that a great many still wish to speak this afternoon and there is very little time left. After the next speaker has concluded, I will reduce the time limit to four minutes. I appreciate that this makes it difficult for Members who have prepared speeches, but if everyone is to be given the opportunity to speak, we simply cannot have more than four minutes. I call Andrew Selous.

Andrew Selous: There seems to be a degree of amnesia among Opposition Members about the scale of the great recession presided over by the last Government and which this Government are having to deal with. That recession cost the British economy £112 billion, and it cost 750,000 people their job. On Labour’s watch, youth unemployment increased by nearly half, long-term unemployment almost doubled in just two years, 5 million people were left on out-of-work benefits, and in one in five households no one was working. We have made improvements, although of course we want to go further, but it is worth remembering the scale of the difficulties this Government have had to deal with in the past four years.
	Government Members believe in high-skill, high-value jobs. That is why we are so passionate about our apprenticeship programme and about the university technical colleges we are introducing. It is why we are so passionate about our young people gaining the best skills and about improving school standards. That is the way to get pay increases, to defeat poverty and to deal with the cost of living issues facing our constituents.
	In my constituency, I see employers rising to the challenge. I see B/E Aerospace in Leighton Buzzard now employing some 540 people, Honeytop Speciality Foods developing a new factory, and Care Group, a company from India, setting up a new factory on the Woodside estate in Dunstable. In India, that business has taken on a significant number of disabled people, and its delightful chief executive plans to do the same in this country—let no one say that capitalism cannot have a human face and a heart.
	The jobs figures in my own constituency show that there has been a 40% fall in the overall claimant count for jobseeker’s allowance in the past year and a fall in unemployment of 54% for 18 to 24-year-olds, 35% for those over 50, and 39% for those who have been out of work for more than 12 months. Of course, we have further to go—we want everyone to have a job—but that is not bad progress, given the scale of the challenges with which we were left.
	We have a Prime Minister who has said at the Dispatch Box that he would like to see a minimum wage of £7 an hour. More companies are paying the living wage. I remind Opposition Members that it took a Conservative Mayor of London to introduce a living wage in London, and a Conservative Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make sure the cleaners in the Department got the living wage. That did not happen under the previous Government.
	What would a socialist Government look like? We do not have to imagine it, because we can just look across the channel, where we will see higher rates of unemployment, much lower rates of business start-up and a whole host of French entrepreneurs, such as Mr Guillaume Santacruz, crossing the channel to set up business here. He has said:
	“Where will I have the bigger opportunity in Europe?”
	Of the UK, he has said:
	“It’s more dynamic and international, business funding is easier to get, and it’s a better base if you want to expand.”
	He has left socialist France to come to a majority-Conservative-led Britain to expand his business.

Oliver Colvile: Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting corporation tax makes it much more attractive for business and industry to come here, and that that is a key thing we should be looking to do, to make sure we have lower taxes?

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We sometimes miss the point that what we should concentrate on is not the tax rate, but the amount of tax the Exchequer gains. Economic history has shown over a long period that lower rates of tax tend to generate more tax revenue, as they inspire entrepreneurs to create more businesses and expand them.
	I am proud that we have a Government who are rising to the infrastructure challenge facing this country. We have heard a lot about infrastructure. My area has waited for a crucial bypass for 60, 70 or even 80 years. I
	have watched the town in which my constituency office is located, Dunstable, and the neighbouring town of Houghton Regis being throttled by excessive traffic congestion for many years. It has had a dreadful impact on businesses there. Even though permission was given for the road in 2003, not a shovel hit the ground during the whole 13 years under the previous Labour Government. I can tell hon. Members that diggers are now on the ground in my constituency and the road is going to get built. There will be relief for the people of Dunstable and Houghton Regis, who waited a long 13 years under the previous Government for nothing at all to happen.
	We have the courage to make sure that people can get on trains in the morning and do not arrive at platforms that are already full. We have not built a new railway line since the Victorian era, but it is this Government who have the courage to rise to the infrastructure challenge.
	We have also shown courage on pensions. Have not Opposition Members received letters from their constituents telling them how appalling the annuity market has been and how the projections of their future pensions were on the floor, cut by more than half? Were they not concerned by that? We on the Government Benches were, and, as the Chancellor said earlier, many of us came in Friday after Friday to try to get private Members’ Bills through to do something about it. Of course, Labour Members did not trust our constituents to spend their own money wisely. Oh no, they did not want to do that—they wanted to control it. I am proud to be serving in a Government who trust people with their own money. As the Chancellor has said, they have earned it, they have saved it and they have the right to have control over it. That is exactly what we should be doing.
	Those are all very good things. Of course, there is further to go. The way to deal with the cost of living and helping people pay their bills is more jobs, more better paid and highly skilled jobs and a high value-added economy. We are going in the right direction. We are creating more jobs and Government Members want them to be well paid and highly skilled, and that is what we will continue to try to achieve.

Michael Meacher: Listening to the Chancellor, I think the Tory attack lines for the next election are pretty clear. They go like this: “Labour left a dreadful economic mess, which we had to clear up the way we did. It’s been painful, but we were all in it together. We always had a long-term economic plan, and now it’s come good and we have a strong economic recovery.” What unites all of those claims is that every one of them is utterly false.
	Labour did not leave an economic mess—the bankers did. In the Labour pre-crash years, the biggest deficit was 3.3% of GDP, whereas the Thatcher and Major Governments ratcheted up bigger deficits in 10 out of their 18 years. Although Thatcher-Major achieved a surplus in two years, Blair-Brown achieved a surplus in four years.
	We were not all in it together. Average wages have fallen 7% since the crash, while, according to The Sunday Times rich list published month ago, the richest thousand
	persons in the population have increased their wealth in this short period—they have actually doubled it—to just over half a trillion pounds.
	In so far as the Chancellor had any long-term plan at all, it was to shrink the public sector in order to enable the private sector to expand into it, but, of course, that did not happen. Of the 1 million jobs that have allegedly been created, two thirds are self-employed on a pittance income and almost all of the rest are insecure, low paid and on zero-hours contracts. The fact is that virtually none of them are full-time jobs on or near the median income.
	As for the present recovery, it is far too dependent on consumer debt to last and it cannot be sustainable. If we look at all the sources of demand—wage levels, productivity, business investment and exports net of imports—we see that they are all dramatically negative.
	The biggest fib in the Tory lexicon is that they had to clear the huge deficit by prolonged austerity. They did not. The then Labour Chancellor’s two stimulatory Budgets in 2009 and 2010 brought the deficit down sharply from £157 billion in 2009 to £118 billion in 2011—a reduction of nearly £40 billion in just two years. The present Chancellor’s austerity Budgets have slowed the reduction to a trickle and it has reached £108 billion this year—a reduction of £10 billion over three years. There is not much doubt there about the quickest and best way to cut the deficit.
	What should be done? Initially, with private investment flat on its back, we need public investment to promote growth, directed in consultation with industrial leaders at energy, transport and IT infrastructure and at house building and laying the foundations for a low-carbon economy.
	How will it be paid for? With interest rates at 0.5%, a hefty investment package of £30 billion could be purchased from the markets at the bargain-basement rate of £150 million a year, which would be enough to generate more than 1 million jobs—proper jobs—within two years.
	It could, however, be done without any increase at all in public borrowing. A further £25 billion to £30 billion tranche of quantitative easing could be directed not at the banks, as it has been before, but at agreed industrial projects; or the publicly owned banks, RBS and Lloyds, could be instructed to prioritise their lending to industry, rather than speculation abroad or on property; or the very rich, who have monopolised 90% of the gains since the crash could be subject to a special super tax to help contribute to tackling the nation’s debt, which some of them helped to create and from which they have most benefited.

Therese Coffey: It is a great honour to contribute to this debate on the Gracious Speech. Some Members have made their final contribution to such a debate, certainly in this House, but I am sure that some will reappear in the other place.
	It is fair to say that the Queen’s Speech is an attempt to build on the Government’s good efforts over four years in order to make our country continue its journey towards a fairer society with a long-term economic plan. Unemployment, long-term unemployment and youth unemployment are all down. That is far from the
	misery that was predicted several years ago. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Chancellor would be the first to admit that we have not tackled the deficit as quickly as we would have liked. Of course the issue is that, as the Office for Budget Responsibility pointed out, the recession was deeper than was initially realised and therefore it is taking longer to get out of.
	Given the amendment we are considering and the guidance given earlier, I cannot talk about some of the Bills in the Queen’s Speech, but there is one Bill that I think will be iconic and will I am sure receive the support of the whole House: the Modern Slavery Bill. I will keep to the guidance, but it is important that instead of having just a budget debate we continue to consider the ideas that we will all contribute to in the next 10 months.
	Earlier, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) put a question to the Chancellor, to which my right hon. Friend replied, in which he rightly pointed out that productivity is not recovering. As the Chancellor said, however, to some extent choices have to be made. It is fair to say that keeping people in work—indeed, having more people in work—is probably a better choice at this moment in time, which will then allow us to focus on the productivity challenge that all of us in this country need to address in order to keep our economic plan going. However, that challenge is not unique to our country, which is why we continue to seek reform at the European Union level.
	The Bills that we have put forward include the small business Bill. One of the things that the Government have been trying to do is to remove some of the barriers to growth, while enabling some of the activities that they would like to see. We will see that with export finance, and with finance being targeted at small businesses and the help in that sector. There is also the important measure adding a deregulation target—a commendable element that I think we will all enjoy passing.
	Of course, there are important measures to help people with work and the cost of child care; child care payments will be addressed in the Child Care Payments Bill. The National Insurance Contributions Bill is really important. I am sure that many Members of this House have examples of companies having done the wrong thing, and we will set that right, just as we will on issues such as zero-hours contracts and removing the exclusivity clause.
	On the infrastructure Bill, I welcome some of the plans related to housing. I give a cautious welcome to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime, with Sizewell C hopefully being built in my constituency. However, I want to ensure that the voice of the community is still part of that NSIP regime, as it should be.
	There is no doubt that the economic plan is working. In my own constituency, unemployment is now at 604, which is the lowest it has been since December 2007. These are all good things, but the journey is only halfway completed. That is why I am confident that the British public, having seen five good years of government, will make the right decision next May and allow us to propose another Queen’s Speech in 12 months’ time.

Margaret Ritchie: This Queen’s Speech comes at a time when the public’s faith in politicians, here in Britain and in Northern Ireland, is
	nearing rock bottom, and many of the reasons for that lead directly back to the subject of today’s debate and today’s amendment, which I support—everyday living standards. The economy, accompanied by austerity measures, has meant less money in people’s pockets.
	It is not comfortable for people in Northern Ireland to hear the Tory-led Government crow in this House about the positive state of the economy and claim that there has been a miraculous recovery, because that is not what people are experiencing and it is far removed from the everyday reality for most families. People feel that no matter how hard they work, their lot will not get any better, and a large proportion of them remain trapped in low-wage temporary contracts that offer no security and little hope, while those who cannot find work are repeatedly vilified.
	The rising levels of inequality—highlighted recently by the Governor of the Bank of England, no less—and an economy in which pay freezes are common and wages fall far below inflation, are hurting people right across Northern Ireland. Low and stagnant pay rates are endemic, with 26% of employees in Northern Ireland being paid below the living wage level. That percentage is higher than for any region in England, Scotland or Wales.
	Just last week, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action held a conference specifically on the problem of in-work poverty, at which it was revealed that working households now make up a majority—some 52%—of those in poverty. We are told by the Government not to worry, because they are “rebalancing the economy” and boosting the private sector. Any such boost to the private sector would be welcome, but as it stands Northern Ireland has the lowest private sector wage level of any region within the UK. We must ask not only what private sector development there is but what kind it is. It must provide sustainable, stable and fairly paid jobs.
	That is all compounded by the high bills that people continue to face for food, electricity and fuel. In Northern Ireland, we pay even more for our energy than people in other UK regions. There have been decreases in the cost of oil on the global market, but people do not see that reflected in their bills. They see prices go up at the drop of a hat but never seem to fall, an issue that just this week Ofgem has asked energy companies to explain.
	In my party, we are in no doubt that the current cost of living crisis is hitting the majority of families right across Northern Ireland, and we ask the Government at this late stage to ensure that that situation is rectified in the last year of this Tory-led coalition. If it is not, more people will be totally placed in peril, and at great financial disadvantage.

Glyn Davies: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. This is the first time that I have been called to speak in a debate on the Gracious Speech since being elected as an MP in 2010, and since we are debating the final Queen’s Speech in this Parliament before the next general election perhaps it is the last occasion that I will have a chance to be called; whether I have a further opportunity is a matter for the voters in Montgomeryshire next May. Anyway, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me today.
	The Prime Minister began his speech at the beginning of this debate last Wednesday by telling the House that the most important task facing the coalition Government during the next year is continuing the work of restoring our economy. That is absolutely the right approach. There are 11 interesting and important Bills in the Queen’s Speech, but underpinning everything that the coalition Government should focus on in the next year is economic recovery.
	While I emphasise the important aim in the Gracious Speech of continuing in a determined way with the task of economic recovery, we should acknowledge what has already been achieved. It is far more than many of us would have expected and it has certainly defied the consistently dire predictions that have been made by the Opposition during the past four years; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor today listed some of those predictions, which have been shown to be completely false. In particular, the falling levels of unemployment and the rising levels of employment have been nothing short of miraculous. Only yesterday, the employment figures for May were published. Unemployment fell by 161,000 in May. Since 2010, more than 2 million jobs have been created.
	In May the number of unemployed people in my constituency fell to 647—just 2.1% of the economically active—which is 270 fewer than a year ago, and 33 fewer than in April. Those are astonishingly good figures, and they are reflected in constituencies right across the UK.
	Montgomeryshire is blessed with many dynamic small and medium-sized enterprises across the range of sectors. Over the past few weeks I have visited several of them, accompanied by Ministers from the Wales Office team. We visited Sidoli, Invertec and T. Alun Jones in Welshpool, Makefast, Stagecraft, Quartix and Trax in Newtown, and last Thursday I joined a celebration at Stadco in Llanfyllin as that outstanding company received the Jaguar Land Rover quality standard award. Those businesses, which are mainly in manufacturing, are growing solidly, providing new jobs and creating apprentices, demonstrating their confidence in Britain and in the Government’s long-term economic plan. The last thing they need is a national insurance jobs tax, which the shadow Chancellor so studiously refused to rule out earlier today.
	Over recent months the Opposition have made much of the cost of living—they have done so again today—as if Labour’s management of the economy had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Experience teaches us that the only way to create sustainable increases in wages is through the marketplace, through the pressure created by competition for good, well-trained employees who are willing to work. Therefore, it is absolutely right that the coalition Government continue with their brilliantly successful economic plans all the way up to the general election.
	In the 20 seconds remaining I want to say that my constituency is rural and depends largely on farming. Currently, the cost of living is being seriously affected by what is happening to the dairy industry. The Government need to tackle that issue and understand why imports are coming in and why the supermarkets are not accurately labelling.

Sheila Gilmore: It is not at all surprising that Government Members want to talk about the “long-term” economic plan, because that diverts attention from the failure of the short-term, one-Parliament economic plan that we were told about extensively in 2010 and 2011, which they said justified many of the measures taken. Interestingly, it is clear from some of the contributions we have heard since last week, particularly the contribution from the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), that such economic growth that we have managed to see over the past year appears to have been stimulated by public investment. He talked about railways and a bypass. That sounds like a Labour policy: public investment to create private sector jobs. Actually, it is our economic plan that is being successful.
	Does it matter whose economic plans did or did not work? Many people would say, “Oh, get on with it. We have to move forward.” But it is important, and in two particular ways. One way has to do with the fragility that still exists in the economy. I want to mention an issue I raised in an earlier intervention: the growing gap between the unemployment rate and the claimant count. When Government Members talk about falling unemployment in their constituencies, they are actually talking about the claimant count. When they greet anything Opposition Members say with, “By the way, the hon. Member should be aware that unemployment in her constituency has gone down by 20%”, they are talking about the claimant count. Some 47% of those who are unemployed are not in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance. That is 1 million people.
	What is happening to those people and to the economy within which this is taking place? A lot of them clearly cannot get jobs, which suggests that this great recovery is not as healthy as the Government claim. Perhaps it differs by geographic area. From the point of view of the economy, this is particularly important, but it is also particularly important for the individuals involved—we must never forget that. Some of them will have a working partner, although not necessarily a very well-off one. They need only relatively small part-time earnings to lose jobseeker’s allowance after six months, because after that they will not qualify for the income-related benefit. Remember that that household has already lost one income, due to losing one of its two jobs, so it has a much reduced income and then it losses £72 a week in jobseeker’s allowance. That household’s buying power and standard of living has dropped catastrophically. What is happening to those people?
	Some of those people are in an even more vulnerable position. I will illustrate that with the case of a constituent who came to me who had no income because he had been sanctioned for six months having been declared fit for work. He has a learning disability of a considerable nature and could not cope with the conditionality of jobseeker’s allowance. He just gave up and stopped claiming because he could not cope with it any longer. He was being supported by his parents, who were living on retirement pensions. How many more people are there who have just dropped through the so-called safety net? I think that the Government should be worrying about that, because of what it is telling us
	both about our economy and about individual cases. I would like the Government to look into that with some urgency.

Mike Thornton: Looking at what has been happening over the past months and years, I am impressed by the desire of Members in all parts of the House to see a fairer society built on a stronger economy. The difference is how we achieve that. We have seen that we need to concentrate on providing jobs, apprenticeships and training for young people.
	In Eastleigh, youth unemployment is at its lowest for five years, not four. There are 125 young claimants or 1.5%. That is still too high but it is a great improvement. The increase in training and apprenticeships is particularly important. We have hit about 3,000 new apprenticeships, and these are real apprenticeships, not some sort of fake training jobs. This is the way to go. If we want to create a fairer society, we need to train people, educate them and help them get the jobs they need.
	Work must be worthwhile, and one of the ways to ensure that is through the Liberal Democrat policy—yes, it is a Liberal Democrat policy—of increasing the tax allowance to £10,500 a year. It is not enough, though. We need to increase that to make sure that no one on the minimum wage pays income tax. I did a rough calculation. The tax allowance would be £12,500 a year. I look forward to that happening soon.
	In the time remaining, I want to look briefly at housing. One of the things for which we have been hugely criticised was the help to buy policy. I was talking to the Council of Mortgage Lenders just two days ago. Of the 19,393 equity loans taken so far, only 1,000 were in London. The vast majority were for first-time buyers, and the vast majority were for houses of less than £200,000, not £600,000. The scheme is doing exactly what it was meant to do—that is, allowing young people from an ordinary family with a small deposit to buy a house, improving on the situation that has existed for several years, where people had to be rich or have rich parents to be able to get together a deposit to buy a house. Of course the Governor of the Bank of England is right that we should keep a sharp eye on the scheme to make sure that it does what it was meant to do, and not what is claimed. It is vital that we continue to build more houses. I hope the housing associations can be targeted to allow them to provide the bulk of this housing.
	On the subject of housing, a long-time bugbear of mine is stamp duty. Why on earth do we have a stamp duty with a cliff edge and a shelf? Up to £125,000 people do not pay a penny. If they buy a house at £125,000 + 1p, they suddenly pay £1,250. That is absurd. If the Treasury would like to find out from me how we can reform this in a totally revenue-neutral and fair way, please pick up the phone and call me. It is very simple and easy to do.

Barry Sheerman: One of the things that my constituents do not like is the sort of debate that we have had today. They watch it on television and think, “What on earth is going on?” We live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world; we
	have the sixth largest economy; and we are highly successful in so many ways, under both the present Government and the previous one. My constituents look at the Queen’s Speech, and it does not relate to the reality of their existence.
	As a social and economic entity, we have changed vastly over the years. This year, we remember the wasted lives of the 1914-18 war, when 16 million young men died. Since that time, and since the second world war, this country has changed dramatically. Nationally and in my constituency—we in Huddersfield are the average—about 8% of people in this country now make anything in manufacturing. The manufacturing sector is very small but highly efficient. It is growing, but as it does so, it increasingly uses sophisticated machinery and fewer skilled workers.
	We have an hourglass economy, with a large number of very skilled people who are doing very well, but many people with traditional jobs and a fair number of skills who have been squeezed out of such occupations, while people with few skills are having a bleak time now in this country and will have a bleaker time in future.
	So much of this Queen’s Speech fails to address the fact that so many Members of Parliament, especially Opposition Members, but—let me be generous—Government Members as well, came into the House to get a good life for people. Many people in our country are not getting a chance to have a good life; they are certainly not doing so in Huddersfield. What we need to have and what should have been in the Queen’s Speech is an emphasis on the difficult things, such as homes and housing. A whole bunch of cowards on these Benches—I say this nicely, because I do not want to be brought up before the Speaker—will not face the fact that nimbyism and the green belt are preventing houses from being built so that people can have a decent place in which to live. When are we going to recognise that?
	When will we invest more in skills, putting real investment into our further education sector and into genuine apprenticeships that last longer than a year and fit people for future jobs, not present ones? The fact is that we have a good skill base, but it is not big enough. If we are not careful and if we are not brave and courageous, we will not have the skills relevant to keep our companies in the premier league.
	Our constituents do not like the argy-bargy that we have all the time. We would be much better agreeing on lots of the stuff that comes before the House for us to discuss. Universities are an example. We must settle on the fact that the present way of funding our universities is putting them all in danger. They are absolutely the jewels in the crown of our skill base and our educational system, but they are under threat.
	In this Queen’s Speech debate and during the last year up to the election, we must prioritise skills, education and homes. I could write the Labour manifesto. That is what we need to do. It is what this Queen’s Speech is missing, and what we will replace in a year’s time.

Zac Goldsmith: I am pleased that the debate is about living standards because it gives me an opportunity to make the link between rising living standards and improved democracy. That link has been made many times before, notably by the celebrated
	Power commission, later by the economist Richard Layard, and later still in a very wide-ranging study by Harvard university. In their different ways, they all established that rising living standards boost the public appetite for democracy, and that boosted and strengthened democracy in turn stimulates an increase in and boosts living standards. The link is unavoidable.
	One element of the Queen’s Speech is a commitment to introduce a recall system. In theory, that would certainly improve our democracy and therefore lead to rising living standards. I say “in theory” because the Government’s current proposal falls so short of genuine or meaningful recall as to be meaningless. However, the House will at least have the opportunity to make profound amendments to the Bill, and I very much hope that it does.
	Recall was promised by all three parties before the last election. They felt obliged to make that promise on the back of the expenses scandal that rocked the House, and it presented an easy, democratic and simple solution. Effectively, recall means enabling voters to remove underperforming MPs if at any time they lose the confidence of the majority of their constituents. It could not be more straightforward: if enough constituents sign a petition in a given period of time, they earn the right to hold a referendum to ask whether constituents want to recall their MP, and if a majority want to recall their MP, there is a by-election. There is a natural safeguard in that the threshold would, in an average constituency, require 14,000 constituents actively to visit the town hall and sign a petition during an 8-week period. Recall would put people in charge, allowing them to replace their MP if a clear majority want to do so.
	The public understood that they had finally been promised a reform that might empower them, but then the election happened. I am afraid to say that the Labour Opposition went quiet on the issue, and the coalition Government began to weave small print through their promise. The current proposal is for a form of recall that can happen only by permission of the Standards Committee, and its criteria are so narrow as to make it entirely meaningless.
	People are already angry with politicians—the signs are everywhere—but hon. Members should try to imagine how voters will react when they discover that they have been duped by this pretend recall Bill, this illusion of reform. It is extraordinary that even if the Bill becomes law, an MP could switch parties, fail to turn up once to Parliament or even go on a two or three-year holiday without qualifying for recall. At the very first scandal, voters will learn that they have been tricked. The anger that they feel will dwarf—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman, with some ingenuity, has done well to keep in order and speak to the amendment. I trust that, in the final minute of his speech, he will conclude with reference to the specific matters in the amendment.

Zac Goldsmith: I will certainly do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Even if people do not realise it yet, at the very first scandal, they will realise that they have been duped. Even before the Bill has been put to the test, 170,000 people have signed a petition saying that they want the real deal—not this thing that the Government are offering. Unlock Democracy has said that, given a choice between this Bill and no Bill, it would go for no Bill, because it thinks that the Bill represents a step back.
	I understand why the Government have done this. The Deputy Prime Minister has talked about kangaroo courts and vexatious campaigns, but he is wrong. Where recall happens around the world, there is not one example of a successful vexatious recall campaign. There could not be one here, because it would require so many people—14,000 people—to be persuaded to join a vexatious campaign. We know that that is simply not possible in our constituencies.
	I am going to run out of time. I simply ask Members to consider how the Government’s proposal might work. It is much more worrying than true and genuine recall.

Jim Sheridan: That was the week that was, as we used to say in the ’70s and ’80s. To echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), this is the last throw of the dice for the coalition Government. The numbers certainly have not come up for the working people of the UK and, in particular, the young people of this country, who are working in terrible environments that should have been gone in bygone years.
	There are problems with zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage. Those people do not have a voice in the workplace because the coalition Government have tried to silence the voice of the trade unions as much as possible. That is the coalition Government’s whole agenda.
	There is bogus self-employment, particularly in the construction industry, where people are being asked to pay double national insurance—as employees and as employers. That is a complete sham.
	I have never openly admitted to being an admirer of the Tory party, but one thing I do admire the Tories for is that when they get into power, they deliver for their own. They do not just talk about that in rhetorical terms; they deliver it. That is what the Queen’s Speech was about—delivering for their friends in the City and elsewhere.
	Unfortunately, I have to say that the Labour Government could have done far more than they did in their 13 years in office for working people in this country. With one or two exceptions, they did not fulfil the ambitions that people had for them; they did not have the hunger or the aspiration to take them forward.
	I am pleased that the current Labour leader is talking the language that people understand and that people want to hear. I am confident that, if he continues using that kind of language, we will see the return of a radical Labour Government. There is a great appetite out there for change. That was certainly reflected on the doorstep during the European elections, when it pained some of us to be told, “Youse are all the same. There’s no difference between youse.” The days of the Labour party tinkering at the edges are gone, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is taking us in the right direction.
	Mention has been made of food banks. Personally, I think that it is a stain on all our characters that there are food banks in this country. When we pose at food banks for press releases, there should be a big sign at the front saying, “I’m sorry.” We have subjected people to using food banks through our policies and we cannot blame anyone other than ourselves.
	One of the most positive policies of the last Labour Government was the introduction of the minimum wage. However, we have dined out on that for long enough. We now need to see the living wage. I am proud to say that my local authority, Renfrewshire council, is not only introducing the living wage for its employees, but using its procurement processes to tell its suppliers, “We will no longer give you the contract simply because you employ cheap labour.” It is trying to instil the standards that it upholds among its suppliers.
	The other people who are walking free are employers who encourage migrant workers to come to this country to undermine and undercut indigenous workers’ terms and conditions, which causes all sorts of problems in communities. The senior executive members of the big companies go back to their leafy suburbs and leave the rest of us to get on with it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition talks about irresponsible capitalism, and that is what we need to stop in this country. We need to stop the exploitation of migrant workers at the expense of our indigenous workers.

Mark Pawsey: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak this stage of the debate. May I give my apologies for leaving early? I have arranged to meet some constituents with a Minister immediately after my speech.
	The amendment calls for the creation of a recovery to ensure increased living standards for the many, and we can achieve that by growing our economy. It is growing in my constituency, as is shown partly in the claimant count statistics—we are at 50% of the 2010 level, with a fall of one third over the past year. Much of that has been achieved through our great location at the centre of England, with excellent road and rail connections. In particular, the Government are improving the junction of the M1 and M6 at Catthorpe, which makes my constituency attractive to business. Substantial development of both industrial and residential property is taking place, as the Prime Minister remarked when he arrived by train at Rugby station to travel along the M6 to the manufacturing technology centre at Ansty. He saw the substantial new housing and industrial development that is coming forward.
	The MTC is itself a success story in supporting manufacturing, and a big theme of this Government’s work has been a rebalancing of our economy. That is how we can create growth and improve living standards. Let us not forget that the manufacturing sector of our economy halved in the 13 years of the last Government. In my constituency, we are making things. Only a few weeks ago, I went to Rosyth to see the new aircraft carriers, which are propelled by motors built by GE Energy in my constituency.
	A company called Automotive Insulations is also a superb success story in the manufacturing supply chain. It produces acoustic and thermal insulation for the motor industry, a sector that is growing fast, with
	customers including Jaguar Land Rover and Bentley. It has doubled its turnover to £12 million in the past year and won awards through GrowthAccelerator, including its “Game Changer” award. Its business has grown, and its staff told me only a year or two ago of the need for new premises. I was able to introduce them to my proactive Conservative-controlled local authority, which introduced them to a developer who is completing new premises for the company as we speak.
	A proactive local authority is also incredibly important for the second theme mentioned in the amendment that I wish to refer to—the need to boost house building. In Rugby, we are building houses. We have just granted consent for 6,200 new homes at the Rugby radio station site, and there has been substantial local support for it. It has been a matter of when, not whether, the development will take place, because there has been effective consultation and engagement with local residents. I hear time after time from developers who want to develop in Rugby about the professional and positive approach of planners in my constituency. Other local authorities could take up that approach. I add that my local authority has been diligent in ensuring that it has an up-to-date local plan. Many of the problems that occur elsewhere arise because of the lack of a local plan.
	In the last few moments of my speech, I will refer to plastic bags—with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) sitting behind me. I was disappointed to see the provision in the Queen’s Speech, because plastic bags make up a tiny part of this country’s litter and household waste. Most bags are used many times before they are put to another use—for instance, as bin liners. It is a great disappointment that the matter was included in the Queen’s Speech.

Jack Dromey: “What planet does the Chancellor live on?”, said the Stockland Green mother. “Does he begin to understand people like me? My husband has been made redundant three times, and each time the new job is on a lower rate of pay. Do they know, up there, what life is like for us down here?”
	That goes to the heart of what the shadow Chancellor said earlier about an era of discontent and disconnection. There is discontent because life is hard for most of my constituents. Living standards are squeezed and people are worried about their kids and concerned about vested interests—energy companies, for example—taking advantage of them. They say to me time and again, “Jack, it just ain’t fair.” The disconnection is because there is mistrust of politics and politicians, and incredulity when people are told that recovery is under way. Time and again I hear, “Recovery—what recovery?” My constituents say to me that this Government simply do not understand their lives, because for too many of them, life is hard and there is insecurity in the world of work. I meet constituents on zero-hours contracts and those in the building industry who complain about being undercut. One said, “Jack, they are exploiting the migrants and undercutting us.”

Debbie Abrahams: Is not the increase in the number of people on zero-hours contracts an absolute shame? The Chancellor was not even able to provide a figure for that number.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the people I met was a young lad of 22. He said, “Jack, I’ve just had a baby. We are trying to bring up our kid as best we can but I cannot plan from one week to the next because of my zero-hours contract.” A woman, Rachel, poured out her heart to the Leader of the Opposition on the Castle Vale estate about what life is like trying to bring up a young child on the minimum wage. There is insecurity at home. One in two people in Stockland Green in my constituency live in the private rented sector and most cannot plan from one year to the next where they send their kids to school or manage their households budgets, because like Cathleen they have contracts that last six months at a time.
	Some people are struggling to buy a home, such as the young family who came to see me and said, “We’re desperate to buy a home, Jack, but we simply cannot afford it. It costs six or seven times what we earn combined to buy a home in this area.” Others struggle to maintain their living standards. One family said, “We’re worse off now than we were in 2009, and for us, holidays are a thing of the past.” Barbara and Jim Brown are struggling, and they are typical of so many of my constituents who can no longer afford to pay their energy bills. Local businesses are struggling to get loans from banks. One civil engineering company said, “Jack, it would be easier to break into my bank than get a loan from it”.
	Mums and dads are anxious about their sons and daughters, such as the wonderful woman in the Castle Vale area who said, “I love my son, Jack. He’s got learning difficulties and he has never worked. He is desperately frustrated and I want to see him get on.” Now, at last he is getting on. Why? Because Birmingham city council’s youth jobs fund has funded a job for him in the upcycle project. You should see the smile on his face, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The council has also driven an apprenticeship programme with 1,500 apprentices thus far. The biggest builder of homes in Birmingham is tackling some of the problems in the private rented sector and driving the living wage to transform the city into a living wage city. However, faced with the biggest cuts in local government history, what can be done by local government is important but limited.
	In conclusion, the message from this debate is this: if people want an economy that works, decent wages that reward hard work, a higher minimum wage, a living wage and an end to undercutting; if they want security in their home or the security of knowing they will be able to buy a home, and if they want the next generation to get on, including building a new generation of badly needed homes, creating jobs and apprenticeships—the kind of wonderful young apprentices I see at Willmott Dixon in my constituency; if they want to be confident that they can heat their home, and to have an honest Government who will not promise the moon but will move mountains on their behalf, stand up for them and be on their side; and if they want a Government who are fair, without the grotesque contrast between the tax cut for millionaires and the bedroom tax being introduced on the same day; if they want a Government who will reverse that and put the burden on the broadest shoulders and abolish the bedroom tax, and if they want a strong economy and fair society, they want a Labour Government.

James Morris: The Government were formed with one overarching purpose: to get our economy back on its feet, building a framework for jobs and restoring some sanity to our nation’s finances. Nowhere was this need greater than in the black country in the west midlands.
	The previous Government promised to put an end to boom and bust. For families in Halesowen and Rowley Regis, they delivered on one half of that pledge. Even before the start of the great recession, gross value added in Dudley and Sandwell collapsed from 88% of the national average in 1997 to just 74% in 2008. As the prosperity gap between the black country and the south-east grew out of control, the number of private sector jobs in the west midlands actually fell under the previous Government. If the boom bypassed the black country, the bust hit families hard in Halesowen and Rowley Regis.
	Now, four years of action from this Government—one might call it a long-term economic plan—have helped to turn things around, and many families in Halesowen and Rowley Regis are starting to see the benefits. Yesterday’s jobs figures showed unemployment falling more quickly in the west midlands than anywhere else in the country, with 80% of the increase in jobs being full-time positions. In my constituency, the number of people who are out of work has fallen by more than a third since the election. Some 2,000 more people in Halesowen and Rowley Regis are in work, helping to ensure a stronger future for them, their families and the country as a whole. Thanks to the year-on-year increases in personal allowances, 30,000 of my constituents are now able to keep more of what they earn for themselves and their families, and 3,000 people on low incomes no longer have to pay any income tax at all. Things are still difficult for a lot of families and we still need to do more to make sure that everybody benefits as the economy recovers, but the evidence is strong that things are getting better. People in Halesowen and Rowley Regis literally cannot afford to return to the mistakes of the past.
	A Government cannot be judged by the weight of legislation they propose, but by the impact their actions have on the country. There is more to commend in this Queen’s Speech than we have time to discuss, but the small business, enterprise and employment Bill will make it easier for businesses in Halesowen and Rowley Regis to compete, to invest and to grow. A few days after the Budget, I was pleased to welcome the Chancellor to Cube Precision Engineering in my constituency, a young company that has grown from a staff of six to a team of more than 37. The day after the Budget, Cube placed an order for a new £325,000 machining centre to allow it to grow further, increase exports and create new jobs. The Bill will help more businesses to access the finance they need to invest in their own growth.
	The measures in the Queen’s Speech build on the achievement of the Government’s long-term economic plan: helping businesses to create jobs, increase our skills base and build prosperity; supporting families with child care costs when parents return to work to make sure that it pays for them to work and our economy is able to benefit from their skills and potential; and encouraging workers to save for their futures by allowing them more choices over how they save and
	more freedom over how they use their money. This is the programme of a Government who have already delivered a lot, but who recognise there is still a lot more to do. This is a Queen’s Speech that I am very proud to support.

Mark Hendrick: An economic recovery for whom? My constituents still struggle. Many are on part-time hours or zero-hours contracts, and those who are in work see their wages stagnating. The Prime Minister wants people to believe that the economy has picked up, but that is not the experience of many of my constituents. Many still feel the pressure and worry about their future and job security.
	Recent updated statistics from the Office for National Statistics found that there are 1.4 million zero-hours jobs in the UK, even though Ministers claimed as recently as September last year that there were just 250,000. The ONS also found that in a further 1.3 million contracts, employees were given no hours at all during a sample two-week period.
	Wages for my constituents in Preston remain below the north-west and UK averages. The average weekly wage in Preston in 2013 was £370—£110 less than the north-west average and £150 less than the average in the rest of the UK. The latest figures show that UK-wide pay growth has slumped to 0.7%, which is sharply down from 1.7% last month and well below inflation, at 1.8%. The Government need to raise the minimum wage and introduce the living wage. I am proud that Preston city council was one of the first councils in the country to implement the living wage, from the beginning of September 2011.
	The standard of living for my constituents in Preston and many others in the north-west has not improved under this Conservative-led Government. Child poverty is above the national and regional average, at 28.7%. Life expectancy in the north-west is below the national average. For men it is 77.4 and for women it is 81.5, compared with 80 for men in the south-east and 83.8 for women. There are 2,295 people in Preston—around 5%—claiming jobseeker’s allowance. In Preston and elsewhere, there are huge amounts of hidden unemployment, among people who have received sanctions on their benefit claims and also those who have been claiming for over six months who happen to be married to someone who is in work. Although unemployment figures have dropped, the number of people on part-time or zero-hours contracts is at an all-time high, while 17.8% of children in the north-west live in workless households.
	In the Queen’s Speech, the Government pledged to increase apprenticeship places to 2 million, but as I have argued in the past, they cannot say what type of apprenticeships they will be. Unskilled jobs such as stacking shelves in the local supermarket are of course welcome, but they are not replacements for good, high quality apprenticeships that give high training and added value in industry, such as at BAE Systems, which is near my constituency and has excellent training, or Westinghouse, another major company that also provides excellent training.
	This Government have promised a great deal; they have delivered very little. The Queen’s Speech is a shadow
	of what it should have been if the Government were genuinely ambitious for the people of this country.

Neil Carmichael: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate about the economy and the cost of living, which are central to the Government’s mission, as expressed by the long-term economic plan, which includes a number of factors that are critical to the long-term plans of this country as a whole. One is, obviously, reducing the deficit; another is making sure we have more skills and more infrastructure, along with the overall aim of rebalancing the economy.
	That is of great importance for my constituency in Stroud valleys and vale, because we have more than 9,000 people working in manufacturing and engineering. That is one of the reasons why I have launched the festival of engineering and manufacturing, to put a focus on that heritage and the prospects of the sector as a whole. It is also critical to ensuring that young people have opportunities and make themselves aware of the examinations and other processes that they might like to pursue to benefit their careers.
	But there is more to do, and that is one of this Government’s missions, now and after the next general election. For one thing, we need an infrastructure that enables people to get out and about and to work. In my constituency, that means improving connections with other parts of Gloucestershire—for example, by moving the railway stations to ensure that people can get to Bristol from Stroud and so forth. These are useful ideas that add up to a strengthening of an already vibrant economy that is ready for the next challenges.
	The other thing we need to do is strengthen our provision of skills. Again, we have some plans in my constituency. We want to establish, in effect, a unit in a now disused part of Berkeley Magnox power station—which is now decommissioned—to provide skills for green technology for renewables and also nuclear technology. That is all good news for young people who want jobs and want to do well.
	I drew the attention of the Prime Minister to the third issue I want to raise when I took him to Renishaw—a really powerful firm in my constituency, employing nearly 4,000 people, with hugely innovative and impressive products. It is a kind of Mittelstand type of firm. We need to see more of them in this country—certainly in the valleys and vale—and we need to encourage them to grow and seek to introduce even more research and development.
	There are two areas worth thinking about here. The first is the taxation system, and we need to enable people to think long term without being bedevilled by short-term planning systems in taxation. They need to think beyond the horizon, which is something that our competitors, notably Germany, are often able to do. We need to adjust our taxation system to enable Mittelstand-type firms to thrive. So, too, do we need to see measures to improve access to capital. That is why I am so pleased with the proposed Bill to achieve that, which we shall debate in due course.
	The other big issue is ensuring that our supply chain is responsive enough to deal with the continuity of growth. We have already established centres to promote the aerospace sector and the automotive sector, all of which is good.
	In conclusion, if we want to increase living standards, the answer is increased productivity. The issues I have highlighted—part of the long-term plan as an overall strategy—are precisely the tools to do the job, and the Government are continuing to work on them.

Ann McKechin: As predicted, the Chancellor’s remarks this afternoon made much of his “long-term economic plan”, but the original 2010 version of an export-led recovery, of increased business investment and of a shift to a new kind of economy has simply not happened. To compensate, the Government have fallen back on a good, old-fashioned, British housing bubble and consumer spend splurge as a recipe to see them through to the general election—pumping up the feel-good factor and praying that nobody notices that living standards are still sliding for huge swathes of our constituencies across the United Kingdom. This form of growth is not sustainable; it is a high-risk strategy.
	The Chancellor was prodded into talking about productivity, and the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) was quite right to emphasise that should be a priority. The problem is that our productivity gap is now wider than it has been over the last 20 years, following the flatlining of the economy over the last seven years. It is not just the recession that has caused the decline. According to the Office for National Statistics, in comparison with our international competitors, output per hour worked in the UK is 21% lower than the average for the other six members of the G7. This is the biggest productivity shortfall since 1992, and according to an alternative measure, the gap in output per worker is now a horrifying 25%. Although we expect output to pick up this year, poor productivity has stifled earnings growth and squeezed real incomes. That shows what should be the priority in the ever-more competitive world that we face.
	UK companies are sitting on some of the largest cash reserves of any western economy, but at the same time, according to a report from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, we have a
	“sustained, long-term pattern of under-investment in public and private research and development…and publicly funded innovation.”
	The UK’s total investment in R and D has been relatively static at 1.8% of GDP. In America, it is 4%, while in France and Germany, it is well over 2% and they are aiming to get to 3%. This is a new world in the 21st century. If we do not innovate and do not develop products, we are going to fall behind and our tax base will go along with it.
	The Government will point out that they created a number of industrial forums for debate and decision making, and a series of industrial papers came out last year. The sector councils for the automotive and aerospace industries have been formed for many years and are industry-led, but the other councils have met on only a handful of occasions, do not have public-facing websites and are basically turning into glorified talking-shops. That needs to stop soon.
	It is not surprising that the Chancellor refused to give way to me when he began to talk about the housing market, because I might have pointed out to him that the average—mean—annual salaries of those who have
	been able to take advantage of his second version of the Help to Buy scheme are £80,000 in London and £49,000 nationally. In other words, we are using taxpayers’ money to help those in the top income decile to buy houses that are already overpriced, while pricing more people out of the market. There is no solution for those on the lowest incomes, and no solution for those who are renting; they are still left behind.
	We need to hear about a programme that meets the key priorities of the majority, but that has certainly not happened today.

David Ruffley: I fear that the amendment contains several new Labour clichés that make me nostalgic for the Blair and Brown years. Delivering rising living standards for the many, not the few, making work pay—the only one that is missing is “an end to boom and bust”.
	Of course, new Labour did not deliver any of those things, but it did deliver the biggest peacetime borrowing deficit that the country has ever seen. I regret to say that Labour has not learnt anything in the last 12 months. According to the House of Commons Library, it has made £29 billion worth of unfunded spending commitments. As for making work pay, this is the party that refused, in the House, to back the benefit cap. Labour Members are quite happy for those on benefits to earn the equivalent of £40,000 a year before tax.
	The amendment refers to child care. Of course that is very important for some of my constituents, especially working mothers. That is why we are introducing a Bill that will deliver 20% of child care costs—up to £10,000 per child, which is worth up to £2,000 per child per year—to working families. Moreover, 85% of the child care costs of families receiving universal credit will be covered.
	What are we doing to support small business, the biggest deliverer of the 1.7 million extra jobs that have been created since 2010? I do not know what the Labour party is doing, but, as well as cutting the “jobs tax” by providing an employment allowance of £2,000 a year, we have come up with a Bill that will raise the maximum fine for employers who do not pay the minimum wage, and will ban the exclusivity that currently prevents people who are on zero-hours contracts from working for other employers.
	Housing has been mentioned. It is true that we need more brownfield sites to be built on by residential developers, and our Infrastructure Bill will cut the red tape surrounding unneeded public sector land that is not being returned to planning permission territory. It will also reduce energy costs, which are a key component of the cost of living, by ensuring that shale extraction takes place across a wider area and more rapidly.
	Finally, let me draw the House’s attention to an omission. I do not know whether it is due to slack drafting on the part of Opposition Front Benchers or to their general disdain for pensioners, but the word “pensioner” does not appear once in the amendment. We are introducing two Bills to deal with the fact that about 12 million of our fellow citizens are not saving enough to provide for an adequate retirement income. Our private pensions Bill will create collective pension schemes to ensure that more people can gain access to
	affordable pensions, while our pension tax Bill will bring about the most revolutionary change in pension provision that the country has seen for more than half a century. Crucially, it will allow individuals not to be compelled to buy annuities at 75, but to have true freedom in relation to the pot of money that they have built up during their working lives.
	The plan is working. Labour has no plan. We should just keep on going.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Although Members have been very well disciplined and have kept their speeches extremely short, there are still many Members waiting to speak and we are running out of time. I must therefore reduce the time limit to three minutes.

Grahame Morris: I will speak very quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	For ordinary people in Easington, east Durham and the north-east of England, things are getting harder, not easier under this Government. Hard-working people are on average £1,600 a year worse off. Families are paying £300 more on their energy bills. At a time when people are working longer and harder for less, raising a family in Easington, as elsewhere in the country, has become more difficult as child care costs have risen by almost a third.
	My good friend and near neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) raised a very interesting point at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. He asked the Prime Minister about the number of children who were living in poverty in households where someone was working. The figure was one in three. Indeed, two thirds of young people in poverty live in a working household. The Prime Minister did not address that question.
	Members on the Government Benches tell us that employment is the route out of poverty, but for many parents hard work is not even enough to provide an acceptable standard of living for their children. In the north-east, full-time workers are now £36 a week less well-off than they were a year ago. The link between economic growth and living standards has been broken. The assumption that as the economy grows wages would grow too no longer holds water under the policies being pursued by this Government. I am very pleased the Labour party has pledged to raise the value of the minimum wage over the next Parliament and to move towards a living wage for businesses that can afford to pay it, and to introduce a lower 10p starting rate of tax. We can only have a successful economic recovery if it is felt throughout society, and the problem with the Government Front Bench—including, with all due respect, the Chancellor—is that the economy is only working for small clusters of privilege. It is not working for the vast majority of people, certainly not in my constituency.
	I wanted to raise some issues in relation to the young unemployed and those who are not in employment or training, but I am afraid there is not time. What the public require is an economy that works for them, not just the few, and a Government prepared to deal with the real issues affecting their lives.

Ian Swales: In 1997 the Labour Government were elected to the theme tune “Things can only get better”, but in my area they were about to get a lot worse. The Teesside Development Corporation was immediately scrapped and after 13 years of neglect, Redcar and Cleveland was judged independently to have the weakest economy in the country, and Middlesbrough had the second weakest.
	Now with a successful local enterprise partnership, Government money pouring in, unemployment in my constituency down by 916 in the last year and manufacturing up, we can see the fruits of some investment coming through. Tonight when I get off the train I will be going past the new £39-million biologics manufacturing centre near Darlington station and on Monday we will be signing the Tees valley city deal, which I hope will act as a break to those Labour people who think the Tees valley should always be run from Newcastle.
	The Government are making the wealthy pay more. Against any year under the last Government, the wealthy are paying much higher taxes on their income, capital gains, pension contributions and spending. This week we passed clause 110 of the Finance Bill, which holds the inheritance tax threshold at £325,000.
	I will just make a few comments about the Opposition amendment. We cannot take any lessons about house building from a party that reduced house building to the level of the 1920s by the time it left office and took 421,000 social houses out of circulation while the waiting lists were going up by 740,000—it is a shameful record. Labour also thinks we can make the energy industry more competitive by freezing prices, but unfortunately that will freeze investment and freeze out new entrants. I have tried in vain to find an organisation outside the Labour party that thinks the energy price freeze is in the interests of consumers. I will gladly take an intervention from anyone who can name such an organisation.
	I support the living wage and helped to launch a campaign in Parliament. The Living Wage Foundation has praised the Liberal Democrat tax cut of £700 because it makes the living wage more achievable. The living wage is worked out from a net figure, so tax reductions do help. Interestingly, the Opposition amendment mentions the 10p tax rate. I would have thought they would have wanted to bury that, as it reminds people that they doubled taxes for some of the lowest-paid people in this country. They mention vocational arrangements, and it is truly a scandal that our young people are so poorly educated that the NHS, engineers and many others have to go outside the country to get their employees. I am pleased that this Government are doing something about putting that right.

Jim Cunningham: Picking up on the last point that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) made about the 10p rate, let me add that a Labour Government introduced that in the first place. We can have lots of debates about that after the event, but obviously I do not have a lot of time to go through the issues I would want to go through.
	I welcome the fall in unemployment—it would be a bit churlish of me not to do so. Obviously, I also welcome the Modern Slavery Bill, because in a modern
	day and age human trafficking is an abomination to civilised society. Of course I also welcome any help that small businesses get, although I do not think that what is being done is enough. Having said all that, the Queen’s Speech falls down because nothing is being done to construct social housing. By contrast, if Labour wins the next general election, we will probably build about 200,000 houses a year, because that is what is needed. Government Members have been debating what we did and did not do when we were in office, but let us not forget that we had to clear up an 18-year mess left by the Tories—they tend to forget that. I can remember the falling down hospitals, the closure of schools and so on, so we do not need any lessons from those guys over there on the Government Benches. Of course in 13 years we could not do everything.
	One thing we should draw to the House’s attention is that purchasing power, regardless of what job someone is in, has fallen by between 5% and 6%. Schoolteachers and low-paid people in Coventry have seen a gradual erosion of the purchasing power of their wages. When people talk about the European Union and Europe, it is well worth mentioning, because it has been mentioned before, that a Labour Government gave the British people a referendum on Europe for the first time. The Heath Government signed up to Europe but the Labour Government of the time went ahead and gave that referendum. Also on Europe people must remember that we had the five tests.
	Obviously, I cannot speak about other issues for as long as I would wish, but I want to mention legislative changes on the regulation of taxis, which are certainly creating a lot of issues in Coventry, and up and down the country, with demonstrations yesterday. The other issue I want to raise is the situation at Coventry City football club. We were promised a Bill last year that would regulate the Football League, but we have been continually stalled on that. A private Member’s Bill will be reintroduced to do something about that, but people in Coventry want to know why they have to spend £70 every time they want to see their football team because of the shenanigans going on between the football club and all the other parties involved. Nothing has been done to resolve that problem. May I suggest that the relevant Select Committee tries to resolve it by taking evidence? I am sorry I cannot go on any longer, as I would love to have raised a load of issues.

Yasmin Qureshi: The Gracious Speech represents a missed opportunity. We missed the opportunity to carry out a number of good things to revive our economy and give our people a good standard of living and the conditions they deserve, and that, as we all accept, is something that concerns the country at large.
	I would have liked to have seen at least four things in the Gracious Speech. The first relates to jobs. It is important that people are secure in their jobs and properly remunerated, yet nothing has been done on zero-hours contracts, which are being abused by many unscrupulous employers. At the same time, despite the Government’s promises, the issue of the minimum wage
	has not been addressed. I know that the next Labour Government will confront that matter and raise the amount.
	Labour has also pledged to work with the private and voluntary sectors to ensure that there is a paid job for every 18 to 24-year-old who has been claiming jobseeker’s allowance for the past 12 months or more, and for every adult over the age of 25 who has been claiming JSA for more than 24 months. That policy has been costed at £1.9 billion. Once we instigate it, it will lead to savings on other benefits.
	We know that people want to work, but some are not able to do so because of high child care costs. Labour says that, to help people to work, it will allow 24 hours free child care for three to four-year-olds and a guaranteed access to wraparound child care through primary school. There are now 578 fewer Sure Start children’s centres and 35,000 fewer child care places. That will be changed by a future Labour Government. We believe that support for child care will help people to get back into work.
	Another important issue is housing. Everyone wants a decent home in which to live, and house-building is at its lowest level since the 1920s. The previous Labour Government spent £20 billion on repairing homes, and a future Labour Government will build at least 200,000 homes by 2030, creating 230,000 construction jobs. We will also ensure that local councils have “use it or lose it” powers over developers who hold on to land with planning permission and do not build homes on it. We will also establish a help-to-build guarantee scheme to increase access to finance for small builders.
	Rising energy prices was another issue that was missing from the Gracious Speech. If Labour comes into power, we will freeze prices until 2017. All of the issues I have mentioned should be addressed.

Sharon Hodgson: The last Queen’s Speech before the general election should have shown that the Government were listening to what ordinary people want. Instead, we had a speech that seemed to be geared more towards allowing Government Members plenty of time to go off campaigning for their own jobs than it was to helping 380 of my constituents who are long-term unemployed, which is an increase of almost 600% in the past two years. It was a speech that talked about charges for plastic carrier bags, but not about helping those people who are struggling to afford the food to put in them.
	The lack of action by this Government to tackle inequality was particularly notable. This is a Government who have helped the rich get richer while allowing the incomes of ordinary working people to fall by £1,600 a year. The Office for National Statistics recently published research showing that the wealthiest 10% of households owned 44% of the country’s total wealth, while the least wealthy 50% owned just 9% between them. That research also showed that the north-east has the lowest average household wealth—not even half as much as in the south-east. Such deep inequality has shown time and again to be a drag on the economy. One of the most effective ways to tackle that is by rebalancing our economy to create more jobs and wealth in our regions, particularly in the north-east.
	Do not get me wrong, Mr Deputy Speaker, the north-east does not need any special treatment or sympathy; that is not what I am after. It is full of people who are highly motivated to work, who have world-leading skills and new and exciting ideas. It has bags of potential, particularly in low-carbon technology and other skilled manufacturing. In fact, only last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Business Secretary came to the fabulous new Rolls Royce factory in my constituency to see that for themselves. I am not sure whether they had time to go for a pint together afterwards, but I would have been more than happy to recommend one of Washington’s excellent pubs.
	What the north-east needs is a fair crack of the whip. So far under this Government regional development funding has been skewed towards the already prosperous London and the south-east and, sadly, nothing in this Queen’s Speech changes that.
	Another way to make our society more equal and more prosperous is by harnessing the potential of women, which means addressing the unaffordability and unavailability of child care. Instead of taking action in this Parliament to address their record of spiralling costs, plummeting availability and cuts to support through tax credits, all the Government could muster in their final Queen’s Speech was the promise of something to come in a year’s time. Parents everywhere will therefore welcome the calls for more free child care for working parents outlined in the Opposition amendment. All I can say is thank goodness this will be the last Queen’s Speech from this Government.

Luciana Berger: I rise to speak in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) and the Opposition amendment and on behalf of thousands of constituents in Liverpool who were looking to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to offer them some relief from the cost of living crisis but received no such thing in the Gracious Speech.
	Not a week goes by in which I do not meet constituents on the doorstep or in my surgery who are struggling to get by. More often than not, they are in work. They are juggling jobs, they are in precarious employment and they do not know whether they can put food on the table from week to week. I listened carefully to the Chancellor and his comments on zero-hour contracts and was disappointed that he did not know the figures, but I can tell him that a conservative estimate of the number of people on zero-hour contracts is 1.4 million. What is the Government’s plan to deal with this problem, which has exploded on his watch? He refuses to ensure that those working regular hours month after month will get a regular contract of employment. That is totally unacceptable.
	There are so many things that the Government could have brought forward to help millions of people in our country. In particular—this issue was raised with the Prime Minister yesterday—the coalition agreement pledged to maintain Labour’s goal of ending child poverty by 2020. The Government said that they would develop better measures for child poverty in this Parliament, but there was nothing. Only this week, we learned that a shocking 3.5 million youngsters in our country are
	living in poverty and the figure is predicted to soar to 5 million by 2020. We have the highest ever recorded figures of adults with children in poverty. I have met too many parents in my constituency who are devastated that they are struggling to provide for themselves and their children. This Government have no answer to a problem that I believe—I have written in my speech the same words as those used by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan)—is a stain on our national conscience. We are the seventh richest nation in the world, but we have more than 1,000 food banks and more than 900,000 people who have had to access emergency food aid on behalf of themselves or their families.
	We could have had a make work pay Bill to reward hard work with a higher minimum wage. We could have had a consumers Bill to freeze energy bills. In my constituency, where we have the third highest level of fuel poverty, that would have helped hundreds of my constituents. We could have had a housing Bill with long-term reforms to increase the supply of homes by 2020, a communities Bill to give people a say over payday lenders and betting shops in their high streets and an immigration Bill to stop workers being undercut through enforcement of the national minimum wage and banning recruitment agencies that use only overseas labour.
	I wanted to talk about long-term youth unemployment, which has gone up in my constituency by more than 50% since 2010, but there is not time so I shall conclude by saying that we need a race to the top, not to the bottom and an economy that works for us all, not just for the very few rich.

Graeme Morrice: The past four years have been a very tough time for a great number of my constituents and many other people across the country. Since the financial crisis of 2008 and the bold and decisive action taken by the previous Government to prevent the collapse of the banking system, the value of our economy, and with it the living standards of the majority of our fellow citizens, has fallen dramatically. Though some might attempt to point score over the causes of our economic situation, it is fundamental that Members recognise right from the start the very human cost of its consequences.
	Whereas Government Members might wish to gloat over indications of some partial recovery, they either completely ignore or are simply too out of touch to recognise that the real value of wages has plummeted for most people while their cost of living has gone through the roof. When Shelter estimates that 4 million families are only one month’s pay packet away from poverty and not being able to keep a roof over their heads, the cost of living crisis that has taken hold in Britain today should be of real concern to us all.
	Over the course of this Parliament, the Bills contained in successive Queen’s Speeches have done little to address the plight of those who struggle the most. This, the final Queen’s Speech before the election, is yet another missed opportunity to assist those in greatest need in society. When we look at the problems that working people face daily and the Government’s inaction, we can only agree that we have a coalition Government in zombie mode,
	oblivious to reality. Government Members may boast about the number of new jobs being created in the private sector, but that hardly compensates for the many thousands of jobs lost in the public sector due to Government cuts. Private sector job creation is welcome, but many of those jobs are insecure, being low-paid, part-time, casual or on zero-hours contracts, where people continue to live day to day.
	The official unemployment count might be reducing, but the cost to the public purse of in-work benefits is increasing—hardly the high-value wage economy that is needed to guarantee the country’s long-term sustainable recovery and hardly a successful economic plan. The Government have cast aside ordinary working people and are on the side of exploitative employers, who cheer from the sidelines as reports such as Beecroft’s try to strip back employment rights, the minimum wage and safety at work. The Government are trying to line the pockets of the richest, in the hope that some of the crumbs will fall from the table. I am aware that we are very short of time, so on that point I will sit down.

Ian Lucas: In his 2010 Budget, the Chancellor said that he would eliminate the budget deficit by the next general election in 2015. On his own terms, he has failed. In the 2010 Budget, the Chancellor said that net borrowing this year would be £37 billion. The latest forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility put the figure at close to £100 billion. That is not the Chancellor’s only failure. In 2010, the Chancellor said that he wanted to create
	“a new, balanced economy where we save, invest and export”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 167.]
	I have already said how catastrophic the Chancellor’s failure has been for the deficit. However, adjusted for dilapidation and depreciation, non-financial private sector investment has fallen from £43 billion in 2008 to £14 billion in 2013. Less investment means less competitiveness and poorer productivity.
	To address the desperate politics of their situation, the Tories and the Liberals have sought to revive the economy through various short-term measures. The funding for lending scheme gave incentives to banks to lend to the mortgage market but did little to help small businesses. The Help to Buy scheme was introduced in the 2013 Budget and has helped to fuel the property market in the south-east in particular.
	Short-termism is the byword for this exhausted Government. Far from having a long-term economic plan, they are staggering through to the next general election and thereafter the inevitable rate rise will happen. Their re-election would be catastrophic for home owners who are already suffering a cost of living crisis, even with record low interest rates, and for business, which will have to cope with increased costs.
	This Government have not addressed the fundamental weaknesses of this country’s economy since the 1980s: over-reliance on the financial sector and over-concentration of wealth and investment in London and the south-east. When the UK economy was at its strongest, it relied on economic growth right across the UK. We had superb regional institutions, such as Halifax building society,
	Leeds Permanent and Northern Rock, which were destroyed because of Thatcherite dogma. That helped to create the global financial crisis that has beset this country and caused the problems that we have.
	As people from right across the political spectrum, but not this Government, are seeing, we need to develop a system of regional finance to support local business and to invest in local economies. We cannot rely on the white-tied individuals in the City of London to support the industry and the businesses that we need. It is time for regional banks. The Government do not even recognise the problem, so they will never provide the solution. Thank goodness this is their last Queen’s Speech.

Iain Wright: I had intended to focus on the structural weaknesses in the British economy of stagnating business investment and a widening productivity gap. However, yesterday I received a call from Maxine Bartholomew, an old friend, who told me that her mother, Rose Stubbs, had died on Tuesday at the age of 87. Rose would have had a lot to say about the Gracious Speech and she would have said it much better and faster than I could, but I will try to do her justice.
	Rose and Maxine were present at the first Labour party meeting that I ever attended, in the Borough hall in Hartlepool, where somewhat nervously I said I would like to somehow become more involved in the local Labour party. Rose took me under her wing then and she has never let me go.
	Rose lived all her life in the Headland part of Hartlepool, a unique and historic part of the world, where people have far too often had to endure hard times. In an area of big characters, Rose—at 4 feet 11 inches and 7 stone wringing wet—was the biggest. Her father was a fisherman and a veteran of the first world war, living on the croft and eking out a wage in the harshest environment—in terms of both the North sea and the economic situation—of the 1920s and ’30s. In the last years of her life, Rose was angry at the return in the 21st century to the insecure employment practices of the ’20s and ’30s that characterised her father’s generation, and an economic model for this country that focused on low skill, low pay and a lack of security at work. I know, too, that she would have been angry at the absence of any meaningful provision in the Queen’s Speech to address the situation.
	Rose always told me that her father had said, “Get a good job in a factory and join a union to ensure that you receive better pay and conditions,” so she would have been angry at yesterday’s announcement that average weekly earnings in the north-east fell by 7.3% last year, leaving full-time workers in our region £36 a week worse off. The situation is even worse for women in the north-east, who have lost £49 a week from their pay packets over the past year. There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to address that, so Rose would have supported today’s Opposition amendment, which calls for
	“a plan to secure a strong and sustained recovery that delivers rising living standards for the many, not just a few at the top”.
	Rose believed passionately in social mobility, in giving working people the power and the tools to better themselves and to ensure that a decent day’s work was well paid. That is why she would have been impressed with what our amendment says about a compulsory jobs guarantee,
	the importance of vocational qualifications and a new partnership with business that emphasises the importance of apprenticeships.
	Despite the forces of globalisation and discontent with politics, we in this House still have the power to effect change for the better for people like Rose and those who come after her. We need to build an economy for working people like her. She would have approved of the Opposition amendment, which is why I will be voting for Rosie tonight and the many people like her in Hartlepool.

Russell Brown: To all those who have managed to find employment in the past 12 months, I say well done. To those on the Government Benches, however, I say that what we are seeing across this country is an unequal recovery. If the Treasury team look at the figures from the Office for National Statistics, they will see that the total number of hours worked each week across the UK has not increased anything like as much as it should have done, given that such a massive number of people are finding work. Those average weekly hours are being spread among more people, hence the unequal recovery across the country.
	I am sick of saying that this time last year the average wage in my constituency was almost 24% beneath the national average, although thankfully the figure has fallen to just under 20%. The problems that we face were first discovered on the high streets of the United Kingdom, and if we look at those high streets today, we will see that in most communities there has been very little improvement.
	The bedroom tax is costing this Government £4.8 billion more in housing benefit over the course of this Parliament, so something has gone sadly wrong. I want an explanation of what the bedroom tax was all about, because almost 400,000 more working people are now in receipt of housing benefit and trapped in a bedroom tax situation than in 2010. That is an increase of some 60% in England, 59% in Wales and 53% in Scotland. What was it all about? People have not changed houses, but they have had to pay more as they have not found suitable accommodation.
	The Labour party in government will move on the living wage and we will ensure that—through public sector procurement—it will be introduced. We need to ensure that life is much better for so many families the length and breadth of this country who find it hard, and we need to ensure that we tackle the high levels of youth unemployment that depressingly still exist for some communities, in a way that will give young people in this country decent jobs, not jobs on zero-hours contracts or on two or three hours a week, which are not enough for them.

Andrew Gwynne: It is a pleasure to contribute briefly on the last day of the debate on the Gracious Speech.
	The striking thing for me is that the last Queen’s Speech of a Parliament is usually stuffed full of Bills—the last few things that a Government want to get done before a general election—and then there are a load of
	draft Bills, which are an indication of where that Government want to go if they are lucky enough to secure another term in office.

Robert Flello: I recollect that before the 2010 general election, the Conservatives criticised the then Prime Minister for what they called a lightweight Queen’s Speech; by comparison with this one, it looks so heavy as to be unliftable.

Andrew Gwynne: I completely agree with my hon. Friend and the real issue is that this Queen’s Speech is lacking in both those areas—Bills and draft Bills. Perhaps it is unfair to Her Majesty the Queen to say this, but the only memorable part of her Gracious Speech was her announcing a tax on plastic carrier bags. That is rather telling, because despite all the big issues facing my constituents in Denton and Reddish, there is very little in the Queen’s Speech about tackling the cost of living crisis, nothing to ease the pressure on housing that my constituents face, nothing on the NHS—perhaps that is a blessing in disguise—and no vision for a better Britain.
	The complacency from Government Members was striking, because this recovery is unequal. Areas such as Denton and Reddish are struggling. I am not a merchant of doom; there are some good indicators. Unemployment is relatively low, at 3.7%. That is welcome but it is still higher than the 2.8% rate when I entered Parliament in 2005. There is an underlying story of low wages and long hours for people in full-time jobs, and many jobs are part-time, on zero-hours contracts and insecure. Of course, that is utterly self-defeating for the taxpayer, because it results in the working poor, whereby we are paying extra in-work benefits to subsidise low wages.

Robert Flello: I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech immensely. He has hit on that insecurity issue yet again. Last weekend, Stoke-on-Trent saw its 10th foodbank opening up, which surely points to the insecurity that exists.

Andrew Gwynne: It absolutely does, and it is a stain on our country’s reputation that so many people in work, as well as those who are out of work, have to rely on charity handouts.
	Of course, in my constituency, an in-work benefit that has soared in recent years is housing benefit. I now have 1,000 extra claimants in Stockport and 870 extra claimants in Tameside. Those increases are surely a sign of that insecurity and those low wages. In my constituency, wages are 20% are lower than the median for the UK. That is why we need Labour’s deal on the national minimum wage and why we need to put in place living wage agreements.
	Youth unemployment is still stubbornly high. I commend Tameside council and, yes, I also commend Stockport council for their efforts to increase the number of apprenticeships, but what we need is a compulsory jobs guarantee, because what really worked for many young people in my constituency was the future jobs fund. It was criminal that this Government axed that very important scheme. We need to upskill the next generation and maximise the benefits of the jobs that have been created in the Manchester city region; in the city centre, in MediaCityUK at Salford Quays and at the airport city. We need to attract new jobs to Tameside and Stockport.
	We need to invest in education. It was criminal that many of my schools missed out on Building Schools for the Future, even though my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) signed off the BSF payments for St Thomas More college, Audenshaw school, All Saints school and Reddish Vale technology college. We need that investment, so that those schools have the same quality of educational facilities that we had in Denton community college.
	Lastly, there is a chronic need to build more housing. It is good for jobs, but we need affordable housing both to buy and to rent. We need decent homes in the private rented sector, because far too many of them are squalid, frankly. We need more social housing. I commend New Charter Housing Trust Group for its new build—I was lucky enough to cut the first sod at its new site in Audenshaw—but it barely scratches the surface of what is needed.
	This Queen’s Speech lacks ambition. I fear that we will have to wait 11 months for a Labour Government and a proper programme for action.

Christopher Leslie: After six days of debate on the Queen’s Speech, what have we learned? I have learned that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches have been determined to make the points on behalf of their constituents, while Government Members consistently ran out of time.
	My hon. Friends have been diligent in pointing out all the items that have been conspicuous by their absence from the Queen’s Speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) made this point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), for Preston (Mark Hendrick), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish—I have listed him already; that is how good his speech was—my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and many more. I apologise to the hon. Friends I have been unable to mention.
	We did not get the measures we wanted in the Queen’s Speech. Many hon. Friends mentioned cigarette packaging and smoking in cars, which were not included. There was nothing on border controls and no mention of the national health service. My hon. Friends should not be surprised by the paucity of the Government’s legislative programme, because it is not by accident; it is by design. It is a deliberate strategy to avoid time-consuming legislation that would be difficult for this House to deal with. They want to scrape the barnacles off the bottom of the boat, as Lynton Crosby famously put it, because they do not want anything to get in the way of the image they want to craft ahead of the general election.
	This Queen’s Speech is not about rising to the challenges that the public want the Government to confront; it is all about giving the appearance of activity, but not real activity itself. It is about image, not substance. It is about the theatrics of government, not getting on with real reforms. It is also about repeating more and more promises, rather than fulfilling the ones they made in the first place. Look at what they promised on making work pay, again in the Queen’s Speech. Strangely, they made that promise in the 2010 Queen’s Speech. This time they made a promise about cutting red tape, which they also promised to do in 2010. They made a promise this time, as they did in 2010, about balancing the books and eradicating the deficit. We know that the Chancellor’s failure to generate growth for three years after the general election means that they have failed to meet that promise.
	Of course, we must not forget one of the most foolhardy promises of all: to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands. In his solemn pledge on that, the Prime Minister said, “no ifs, no buts”. That was what they guaranteed. It is amazing that there was no mention of that pledge in the Queen’s Speech. But promises are difficult. These are tough times and, because of the Chancellor’s failure to get a grip and generate growth early enough, public finances are in a difficult state.
	We are going to find times tough in the next Parliament and lower priorities will have to get less funding. What is the reaction of Government Members to these difficult circumstances? Do they knuckle down? Do they redouble their efforts, roll up their sleeves and try to do something about the challenges facing this country? Absolutely not. They switch on to autopilot mode and go into “coasting”, and we end with a legislative programme, such as the one we have, that does not confront the problems that the country faces.
	Yes, we hear in the Queen’s Speech that the Government want to help small and medium-sized enterprises with late payments, but what about helping businesses with real lending support and the banks that should be helping those businesses get the equity in and get the growth that we need in our economy? We hear in the Queen’s Speech that the Government want to help with penalties where the minimum wage is not paid, but what about the real reform strengthening the minimum wage and ensuring that we link it to average earnings to make an appreciable difference? The Government want pensions flexibility. We welcome that, but what about the advice and guidance that those retirees will need in order to avoid problems further down the line? The Government even talk about child care tax relief eventually, but what about 25 hours of free child care for three and four-year-olds? That would be possible if the Government only pulled their finger out and collected the bank levy as they are supposed to do.
	We do not see these measures because the Government do not understand the challenges that the public face. They do not offer a long-term economic plan. This is a Government obsessed with short-term political calculations—the phony concern of those who are focused more on the appearance of introducing reform than on the reality of undertaking reform.

Robert Flello: On pensions, the £5 billion or whatever figure will go into the Treasury from the Government’s proposals will be more than offset when, no doubt
	under a future Labour Government, the chickens come home to roost and mis-selling scandals hit. It will be a Labour Government who have to pick up the mess.

Christopher Leslie: That is why we want to see the full detail of the advice and guidance that need to be put in place. The Government do not like hearing it, but these are the questions that have to be answered. Those answers were not in the Queen’s Speech.
	It was not a long-term economic plan that we got in the Queen’s Speech, but a set of short-term obsessions focused on political calculations. The Queen took less than 10 minutes to read out the speech that she was given, yet for most of our constituents it offers zero progress on their concerns. The parties in government think that all is fine with the economy—everything is going perfectly well—but how detached from reality can they get?
	The Financial Secretary will no doubt speak shortly and she can quote all the economic data she likes, but I have to tell her that for many people this is an economy that is about low pay, zero hours and, for those who are struggling, food banks. She can quote GDP statistics in recent months, but we are seeing an economy where the very wealthiest 1% in society are doing particularly well and seeing their share of the cake grow while the rest of the population are seeing their share shrink further and further. The Government may be satisfied with this state of affairs, but the Opposition are not.
	In the remaining 11 months before the general election, we should have a substantial and meaningful legislative programme which tackles some of these problems, rather than the set of headlines and press releases that have been strung together for effect.

Stephen Doughty: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Christopher Leslie: No. I have only a few more minutes.
	I wanted also to focus on the Infrastructure Bill that the Chancellor has brought forward—the so-called Infrastructure Bill. Third time lucky. The last two infrastructure Bills certainly did not do the trick, nor did the 11 infrastructure plans and strategies that the Government have published since the last general election, or the 79 press releases that we have had on infrastructure since then. We know that this Chancellor is obsessed with presentation, not with getting diggers on the ground.
	Let us look at the problems that this country is facing. There are 5 million people on low pay in our country today, yet there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to incentivise the living wage, which would make a real difference. Bank lending to small businesses that need real help is falling, but banking reform has been inadequate and is not the action that we need. There is a cost of living crisis, with prices yet again exceeding wages, according to the latest economic data. Yet no action has been taken on the big six energy companies, which continue to fail to pass on to their customers even reductions in wholesale energy prices.
	The state of affairs in housing is one in which demand goes higher and higher, but house building is at its lowest since the 1920s. I must say to the Chancellor that if he thinks that a new town in Ebbsfleet adds up to a housing strategy, he is sorely mistaken. Yes, we have
	Help to Buy, but we need “Help to Build” alongside it if we are to tackle that particular problem. Tenants in insecure accommodation are being ripped off by letting agents.
	On child poverty, it is predicted that 3.5 million children will be in poverty over the next few years, which is five times the Government’s original estimate, but that does not even get a reference in the Queen’s Speech. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) pointed out, 20 million meals have been served in food banks in the past year, which is a badge of shame for the Government, but there is no reference to that in the Queen’s Speech. The national health service is, of course, under more strain than ever before, but there was not a single word about it in the Queen’s Speech.
	With all those problems, what have the Government been doing for the past week? They have been feuding among themselves, with Cabinet Ministers briefing against one another and not just two parties in coalition but at least four factions vying for political control. Somebody somewhere has got to get a grip and to show some real leadership and good government, rather than allowing this appalling state of affairs and factionalisation to continue.
	I must tell Government Members that, day by day, we are seeing a coalition that is less a coalition than a conspiracy for inaction. [Interruption.] I will give way to the Chancellor if he wants to talk about food banks, child poverty or housing strategy. They are not interested in those matters, however, because the Queen’s Speech is an artifice—it is all about presentation and the spin that they want to put on these issues.
	Where is the Government’s ambition and sense of urgency about the problems in the country today? The legislative torpor in the Queen’s Speech is absolutely appalling. They have turned the House of Commons into the most expensive waiting room in history. In this Queen’s Speech, they are treading water for another year. We know that their legacy will be the slowest economic recovery for 100 years. This will not do, and our constituents will not stand for it. The fact that we have to wait a further year for the general election is a tragedy for the millions of people who need real help now. The Government are squandering the chance for change in this country and, with it, the potential that our country should have, which is why Opposition Members believe that Britain deserves much better than this.

Nicky Morgan: This Queen’s Speech builds on the Government’s long-term plan to create a stronger economy and a fairer society. We have had a debate, but the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) did not appear to want to talk much about Labour’s amendment and he certainly did not want to talk about Labour’s plan, if it has one, for the economy.
	Let me go back to the beginning of the debate and pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for their eloquent, articulate and, it has to be said, hugely entertaining speeches last week. As they affirmed, it was the first time that female Members of Parliament had both proposed and seconded
	the Loyal Address, and it is an honour for me to close the proceedings on it tonight. That is especially true at a time when our country can boast more women in employment than ever and more women working full time than ever. Those statistics are of course part of a wider picture in which not only has overall employment reached its highest level ever, but unemployment has reached its lowest level in more than five years.
	Let me turn to the speeches—I counted 37 of them—in today’s debate. We started with the contributions of three distinguished Members: the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) talked about Labour’s waste during office. He would know a lot about that as the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talked about the amnesia of Opposition Members—we can see it in some of their faces today—and the problems that they left behind for this Government to deal with. He spoke about investing in infrastructure. I am sure that he will welcome the Infrastructure Bill that was announced in the Gracious Speech last week.

Oliver Colvile: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is incredibly important that there is investment in the south-west, including in our railways and roads? That is how growth will be delivered in the south-west and in my Plymouth constituency.

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend. The Labour party did nothing for the south-west. He has been a doughty champion of investment in the south-west since his election in 2010. The Treasury and other Departments continue to look at road and rail projects, which will make a huge difference. Of course, we saw the speedy rebuilding of the railway line following this year’s floods, which caused such disruption to the south-west. We did not hang around talking about it; we got on and delivered the investment that was needed.

Jack Straw: If the right hon. Lady is so critical of the Labour Government’s record, will she explain why the Chancellor, when he was shadow Chancellor, made the commitment in anarticle in The Times on 3 September 2007 that a Government under him would endorse Labour’s spending plans for the following three years?

Nicky Morgan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much indeed for his question. Although I was not in the House at the time, my party warned the Labour Government about excessive borrowing and spending. It is frankly rather pathetic of Labour Members to say, not just in this debate, but in many debates, “You didn’t warn us. You didn’t tell us that we weren’t doing the right thing.” They were in government at the time and they were running the country.
	The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) showed in his opening paragraph—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want to hear the Financial Secretary, but I am struggling. I am sure that Members want to hear the answers.

Nicky Morgan: The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton showed in his opening paragraph that he understands the Government’s economic policy perfectly. It is a shame that he did not stop there, because he summed up so beautifully all the Government’s achievements over the past four years.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) talked about the dairy industry in his constituency, and I heard what he had to say.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) talked about the increase in the personal allowance. His kind offer to advise the Treasury on the reform of stamp duty has been noted and I am sure that we will take note of what he has to say in the run-up to the next fiscal event.
	The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) offered to write the Labour party manifesto for the next election. I wonder whether those on the Labour Front Bench were listening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) talked about recall, about which he is passionate. I suspect that there will be many debates on that issue in this House before the recall Bill is passed.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) talked about how the Government are delivering for manufacturing and rebalancing manufacturing. It is worth noting that manufacturing is expanding faster in the UK than in any other country in the G7.
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who I cannot see in his place, spoke of an era of discontent and disconnection. I agree with him. There is an era of discontent and disconnection in the Labour party—discontent with the leadership and disconnection from what this country needs to rebuild the economy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) talked about the Labour party’s promise to end boom and bust. He was right to say that it delivered only one half of that promise.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) talked about trusting people with their pension savings.
	The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) talked about the successes and investment in his constituency, and mentioned the Tees valley city deal. I am sure that all Members wish him and everybody who will sign it next week the best of luck.
	The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) talked about the 10p tax rate. He laid claim to the fact that the last Government introduced it. The last Government also got rid of it, which caused great unfairness to those who were being taxed at that rate.
	The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) made a spending commitment of £1.9 billion, which only reminds us that the amendment would cost £14 billion.
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) talked about zero-hours contracts. I think she said that 1.4 million people are on zero-hours contracts.
	In fact, the ONS estimates that there are 1.4 million zero-hours contracts and that 583,000 people are on them. She should be careful, because the ONS recently warned the shadow Business Secretary about his interpretation of those figures.
	The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) gave an eloquent speech and demonstrated to all of us the dangers of someone turning up at a local party meeting and saying, “I want to get involved.” Many years later, they find themselves here on the green Benches—we have all been there.
	Many hon. Members made points about the cost of living. Of course the Government want to see rising living standards for households up and down the country, and we have helped households by freezing fuel duty and council tax, taking money off energy bills, capping rail fares and introducing free school meals. However, the best way to improve living standards is to stick to our long-term economic plan to improve productivity, get as many people in work as possible and ensure that they take home as much of their pay as possible.
	As the House will know, we have already made real progress on that front, but this Queen’s Speech introduces measures that will further increase employment. It offers tax-free child care, which will make a return to work more financially viable for thousands of mothers and fathers and, for the first time, help those who are self-employed or setting up businesses. It offers a small business Bill, which will make it easier to establish and grow small businesses, and an Infrastructure Bill that will help businesses both large and small by creating the transport and digital networks that they will need to thrive in the long term. All those steps will help our businesses get more people into work, which will support our households and grow our economy.

Christopher Leslie: Will the Minister give way?

Nicky Morgan: I cannot take any more interventions. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to make his arguments, but let us see how we get on. First, I want to respond to the points that hon. Members made about housing.
	Of course we recognise that in some parts of the country, people are worried about house price rises over the past year. However, I point out, first, that real house prices are still below their pre-crisis peak; secondly, that the Government are committed to a number of new building schemes to increase housing supply, including the new garden city at Ebbsfleet; and thirdly, that we are helping through the Help to Buy scheme thousands of people who earn enough for a mortgage but are struggling to raise a deposit. The official statistics released last week show that Help to Buy is opening up home ownership to thousands across the country, with more than 94% of all completions being outside London and more than 85% being by first-time buyers. To the Opposition Member who dismissed the “stupid” Help to Buy scheme, I say that that is an attack on aspiration and on everybody who wants to own their own home.
	Fourthly, I point out that the Financial Policy Committee is in a position to step in if it thinks we are seeing a return to unsustainable lending levels. We are monitoring the situation and taking action, and we are ready to take further action if we believe it has become necessary.

Christopher Leslie: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Christopher Leslie: I thank the Minister; we do have a little bit of time left. Does the Minister believe that people in this country will be better off at the time of the general election in 2015 than they were at the time of the last general election? Does she agree with the IFS that they will not be?

Nicky Morgan: The whole country will be better off, because we are fixing the economy, getting more people into work and seeing wage levels going up and the inflation rate falling. If the hon. Gentleman was waiting to ask that question, he could have asked it during many other speeches this afternoon. He will have to do better than that next time.
	It is worth noting that the hon. Gentleman gave a speech recently on efficiency savings, but no savings were identified. He listed a lot of ways to spend money, instead—£21,000 on keeping a police station open; the restoration of the spare room subsidy; the jobs guarantee for young people, which as we have heard today is a £1.4 billion commitment; a house building programme; and a British investment bank. The Government will not take lectures on how to run the economy.
	This Queen’s Speech proves that this Government are just as radical in our fifth year as we were in our first. There were more Bills in this year’s Gracious Speech than there were in the last Government’s final Session, and they are serious Bills tackling serious issues—pensions, infrastructure, small business, child care payments, serious crime, modern slavery, the armed forces, social action and heroism, national insurance contributions and the recall of Members of Parliament.
	This Queen’s Speech will be one further crucial step in the Government’s long-term economic plan. It will help those who want to work but are put off by child care costs, and those who are forced to work by the despicable practice of traffickers and slave masters. It will help small businesses access finance and savers access their pensions, and most importantly, it will keep employment rising and the deficit falling. That is why we reject the Opposition’s amendments and why I commend the Gracious Speech wholeheartedly to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 232, Noes 269.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 270, Noes 231.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
	Most Gracious Sovereign,
	We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
	Address to be presented to Her Majesty by Members of the House who are Privy Counsellors or Members of Her Majesty’s Household.

SUTTON COLDFIELD (ROYAL STATUS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for having been granted this Adjournment debate—my first for at least 10 years—on the subject of the re-assertion of the royal status of the town of Sutton Coldfield. The debate is particularly timely because last Friday Mr Speaker visited my constituency and the royal town, when he addressed my constituents in our historic town hall.
	Over the last year there has been a tremendous campaign throughout Sutton Coldfield to validate, prove and reassert our status as a royal town—not a royal borough, for that is a local government structure, but as the royal town of Sutton Coldfield. We were granted this status many centuries ago during the reign of King Henry VIII.
	Since 1974 Sutton Coldfield has been part of Birmingham for local government purposes. This is greatly resented, particularly by my elder constituents who at the time marched and petitioned against the loss of our borough council. Indeed, the late Edward Heath, Prime Minister at the time, told me that his office received more letters on this matter, in opposition to the change, in the month before it took place than on all other national and international matters.
	This change of status inevitably led to a perceived diminution in our individual identity in Sutton Coldfield, and the emergence of a “North Birmingham” entity with which Sutton has never concurred and has never accepted. Of course, in Sutton Coldfield we understand that local government arrangements are but a small part of what we are. We remain, in our view, an ancient royal town deeply proud of our heritage and history, and conscious of the fact that local government arrangements, while important, are a relatively modest part of the fabric, nature and activity of Sutton Coldfield. Within the town, there is a society, an organisation or a charity for almost every enthusiasm and activity one can imagine, and many of them continue proudly to sport the royal connection.
	Over the last year or so, I have led the campaign to reassert our royal status and royal heritage. Of course, we are not seeking something new, nor are we seeking any legal change. We wish merely to reassert something that we claim never to have lost and which we have enjoyed down the centuries: that the royal town of Sutton Coldfield bears this title in perpetuity, as clearly documented throughout our history.
	The campaign to reassert our royal status has been supported extensively throughout Sutton Coldfield and hundreds of people have come forward with evidence to support our claim. This campaign has been given terrific support by the award-winning and much admired local newspaper, the Sutton Coldfield Observer, under its experienced and respected editor, Gary Phelps, with the support of one of his journalists, Elise Chamberlain, a rising journalistic star who has spent many hours sorting through evidence and has braved many a dusty archive in diligently carrying out her investigation.
	The Sutton Coldfield Observer energised the search for historical precedent, with local residents of Sutton
	Coldfield searching through heirlooms and attics and discovering a mounting cohort of evidence which earlier this year we were able to lay before the Cabinet Office Minister responsible for this matter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark).
	The senior councillors, including Councillor Anne Underwood and Councillor Margaret Waddington, alongside honorary alderman David Roy OBE, former lord mayor of the city of Birmingham, and members of the Sutton Coldfield Civic Society, led by Elizabeth Allison BEM, have spent much time and effort researching and investigating our case. My distinguished predecessor Lord Fowler of Sutton Coldfield has given his vigorous support, as has the Lord-Lieutenant of the West Midlands, Paul Sabapathy CBE, another distinguished local resident. Prior to the delegation from Sutton Coldfield that visited the Minister earlier this year, I held a series of meetings with the Garter King of Arms, the College of Arms, the Crown Office, the Cabinet Office and officials at Buckingham palace. I would like to record my thanks to them all for the sympathetic hearing, and the helpful advice and guidance they offered. These matters are both more complicated and more labyrinthine than they may appear, steeped in history and precedent as they are.
	Throughout this joint investigation into the history of Sutton Coldfield’s royal town status we have found no evidence to prove that our royal title has been either lost or repealed. Instead we have uncovered a great deal of evidence that shows that Sutton Coldfield was granted royal status in 1528 in perpetuity. Although this fact has been taken for granted locally until comparatively recently, documents show that Sutton Coldfield was referred to as the royal town of Sutton Coldfield in an official capacity up until 1974. However, under the Local Government Act 1972, to which I referred earlier and which heaved Sutton Coldfield into Birmingham for local government purposes, that point was not addressed. We believe we have now found precedents, not least precedents governing Scottish royal towns, which put this right and which I hope my right hon. Friend will address in his response.
	In 1528, Bishop Vesey obtained a charter from King Henry VIII which referred to Sutton Coldfield as
	“the royal town and village of Sutton Coldfield”.
	Born at Moor Hall farm, Vesey became a confidant of the King, a status he managed to maintain throughout his life, in sharp contrast to many of the King’s other confidants, who came to a grisly end, as devotees of “The Tudors”, the brilliant television series, will attest. As a young priest, Vesey was appointed chaplain to Henry VIII's mother, Elizabeth of York, and when the King acceded to the throne he became a close adviser to him and was rewarded for his loyalty with the bishopric of Exeter in 1519. He was one of the six bishops to accompany Henry VIII to the famous meeting with Francis I of France at the field of the cloth of gold in northern France, which at the time, of course, was part of England. For much of the rest of his life Bishop Vesey endowed and supported his home town of Sutton Coldfield by plundering his bishopric of Exeter to our very great advantage—an advantage that still benefits us today in Sutton Coldfield through the work of the Sutton Coldfield Charitable Trust, which dispenses largesse to many worthy and brilliant organisations throughout the town.
	In the charter granted in 1528 the following statement is made:
	“And that the same town and village shall for ever hereafter be accounted, named and called, The Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield, in our County of Warwick”.
	Bishop Vesey, who still rests in Sutton Coldfield parish church, gave the town Sutton park, the biggest municipal park in Europe. He oversaw the regeneration of the town centre, much as we are seeking to do today on the back of Britain’s rescued and newly vibrant economy. He also built our town hall, in which Mr Speaker spoke last Friday, and founded one of our two grammar schools, which still proudly bears his name. He rebuilt the marketplace to encourage trade, with paved streets, new roads and bridges constructed to promote it.
	Sutton Coldfield today abounds with signs of royal association. Our royal status is proclaimed in the arms of Sutton Coldfield. The gold greyhound and red dragon derive from the coat of arms of early Tudor kings and were incorporated as a direct result of King Henry VIII’s decision to grant Sutton Coldfield the charter of incorporation as a royal town.
	From that point on, Sutton Coldfield had secured its place in our national history. Shakespeare sent one of his best-loved characters, Falstaff, to Sutton Coldfield on the way to the battle of Shrewsbury in Henry IV Part I. Falstaff says:
	“Bardolph, get thee before to Coventry; fill me a bottle of sack: our soldiers shall march through: we’ll to Sutton-Co’fil’ to-night”.
	I feel the warm approbation of the Secretary of State for Education upon me at this point, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is believed that this mention was a result of the Bard’s family connections with Sutton Coldfield, where it is claimed he had well-to-do relatives residing at Peddimore Hall, a later version of which still stands and was originally owned by the Arden family, relatives of Shakespeare’s mother. The farmhouse has “Deus noster refugium” God is our refuge—inscribed above the doorway. Given the constant threat to our green belt in Peddimore, it is probably quite apt.
	A second charter was granted to Sutton Coldfield by Charles II in 1662, which simply restored those powers bestowed by Henry VIII 134 years earlier, and confirmed all the privileges previously granted.
	A third charter, granted by Queen Victoria on 31 December 1885, saw the ancient and royal town of Sutton Coldfield become a modern municipal borough. Importantly, there is no mention of the royal status being withdrawn.
	The royal town status of Sutton Coldfield was recognised again in July 1928 when, on the 400th anniversary of the granting of the charter by Henry VIII, the town celebrated by holding a pageant. Thanks to diligent local research, we have located a printed programme of festivities, which includes a letter from Buckingham palace after His Majesty King George V had received a copy of a book of the pageant. The letter reads:
	“In thanking you I am commanded to express His Majesty’s best wishes for the success of the Pageant which has been organised to commemorate the four hundredth year of the granting to the Town of a Royal Charter by King Henry VIII.”
	Once again, in 1957, the royal town status was recognised when Her Majesty the Queen visited the town for the world scout jubilee jamboree. Similarly, we have located
	an official programme of the event, which refers to Sutton Coldfield as both the royal town of Sutton Coldfield and the borough of Sutton Coldfield, which we contend refers both to our status of royal in perpetuity and to our local government arrangements.
	Although such programmes and details bear no legal status, they do, I think, indicate what was a clear popular understanding at the time and significantly one not contradicted or gainsaid by the authorities. Nor are we seeking any legal instrument affirming all that I have said.
	Our conclusions at the end of this long campaign, based on extensive research and evidence and on a case supported overwhelmingly throughout Sutton Coldfield by many thousands of local residents, are that in spite of the vast changes our town has seen over more than four centuries, since Henry VIII granted the royal charter in perpetuity, there is no evidence to suggest that that royal town status has ever been revoked, and we therefore seek reassurance tonight that we can proudly rely on that and use it in a sober and appropriate way forthwith.

Greg Clark: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who has represented Sutton Coldfield so ably for more than 13 years now, on securing this important Adjournment debate and on the campaign that he has led that has been so trenchantly supported throughout Sutton Coldfield by his constituents.
	My right hon. Friend thought that the Secretary of State for Education might approve of his references to Shakespeare, but I think that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport ought also to approve of the theatrical rendition he gave. As his constituency is not far from the home of the Royal Shakespeare Company, David Tennant, Sir Ian McKellen and various other luminaries should watch out now that we have seen the talents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield.
	I have followed this campaign with close interest. This interest is, of course, bolstered by the fact that I represent the town of Royal Tunbridge Wells where we too are proud of our royal connections. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, I had the great pleasure of receiving his delegation in Whitehall earlier this year. On that occasion he brought with him others involved in his campaign and it is clear that the partnership between my right hon. Friend and the editor and journalists on the Sutton Coldfield Observer has developed into a strong and sustained effort throughout Sutton Coldfield that has captured both the enthusiasm and support of local residents.
	The evidence that the Sutton Coldfield Observer has collected—as well as how it was presented to me and my officials in a formidable dossier that has pride of place in my office—was of deep historical interest and would be to anyone who looks closely at these matters. It also showed the importance that citizens attach to their local heritage and the interest in and commitment to the history of their local surroundings that people feel.
	My right hon. Friend set out the long relationship that Sutton Coldfield has had with the Crown. This began when the manor of Sutton passed into the hands of the King during the reign of William the Conqueror.
	The royal manor of Sutone gets a mention in the Domesday Book. For reasons that are not recorded, the Crown gave away its royal manor in Sutton Coldfield in 1135, but the fortunes of Sutton Coldfield were revived, as my right hon. Friend has said, by John Harman, better known as Bishop Vesey, after lying dormant for some years. Returning from his bishopric in Exeter to Sutton Coldfield in 1524 to attend his mother’s funeral, it is recorded that Bishop Vesey decided that something needed to be done to regenerate the town.
	He obtained the charter of incorporation from the King in 1528 that bestowed on Sutton Coldfield the status of royal town. That charter reads, as my right hon. Friend said that
	“the same town and village shall forever hereafter be accounted, named and called the Royal Town of Sutton Coldfield in our county of Warwick”.
	As my right hon. Friend set out in his speech, Bishop Vesey, having secured this royal recognition, went on to regenerate the town and gave people access to Sutton park by making it a royal forest, allowing Suttonians to use its resources.
	Indeed, Sutton Coldfield’s emblem of the Tudor rose also finds its roots in Bishop Vesey’s association with Henry VIII. According to folklore, King Henry VIII was hunting in Sutton Park as the guest of Bishop Vesey when he was charged by a wild boar. Before the boar could reach the King, it fell dead with an arrow through its heart. The King’s saviour emerged from the woods and turned out to be in the form of a beautiful young woman. When she told the King her family had been dispossessed of their property, he ordered that restitution should be made to them. To the young woman he personally presented the Tudor rose, which he decreed should henceforth be the emblem of Sutton Coldfield.
	Having looked carefully at all these matters, I fully understand the pride people in Sutton Coldfield feel in their royal heritage and the history of their town. As my right hon. Friend said, the local government reorganisation of 1974 incorporated—I think he used the word “heaved”—Sutton Coldfield into the city of Birmingham for administrative purposes. I am a great admirer of that city and as my right hon. Friend said, many Sutton Coldfield residents have served with distinction in the city of Birmingham. I am looking forward to attending a conference there next month on one of our great civic heroes, Joseph Chamberlain, organised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart).
	That was not the first local government change to affect Sutton Coldfield. The town became a municipal borough in 1885, and although it was not designated a royal borough, the title of royal town continued to be used, as my right hon. Friend has demonstrated. In that respect, there are some similarities with my own town of Royal Tunbridge Wells. Since 1974, there has not been any local government authority called Royal Tunbridge Wells, the newly formed borough having taken in several adjoining urban and rural district councils. Nevertheless, the use of the town’s royal title continues.
	Our two towns have other things in common, too. We have had more than our fair share of celebrated residents over the years. I note with interest that Sutton Coldfield has been home to much-loved national figures including Sir Roger Moore and—perhaps she is in that category—the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Tunbridge Wells boasts many pillars of the establishment, too, such as Sid Vicious and the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).
	The case that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have made is clear and simple: while there is no corporation or similar legal entity that carries the royal title, there is no reason why the lack of a local council should prohibit the continued reference to Sutton Coldfield as a royal town. I am very sympathetic to his argument, but he will understand that I must be guided by established precedent in an area that is often complex. I am pleased to tell him that in my researches I have become aware of a clear and helpful precedent. A number of Scottish towns are in an analogous position to Sutton Coldfield, in that local government reorganisations did not carry forward their royal titles into the names of the new authorities. In 1977, the Government of the day clarified that, notwithstanding the absence of a local government body containing the royal title,
	“There is no statutory ban to the continuance of historic titles for other purposes.”—[Official Report, 6 December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 694W.]
	There being no statutory ban, I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend and his constituents should wish to use the title. In other words, I am pleased to be able to confirm today to him and his constituents that there is no statutory prohibition on the use of this historic title. I can therefore confirm also that there is nothing to prevent the people of Sutton Coldfield making use of their historic royal title.
	Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that Mr Speaker had the pleasure of visiting Sutton Coldfield just a few days ago, to speak to Suttonians from the university of the Third Age in the historic setting of Sutton Coldfield’s town hall. While neither he nor you will have known the contents of this Adjournment debate, it had already been granted.
	The results of this long campaign in the town will appear in the Hansard record of our proceedings, which will no doubt be read with considerable interest across Sutton Coldfield. The debate also brings to a close uncertainty on the matter, which I know will be hugely welcomed by my right hon. Friend, Sutton Coldfield’s tenacious and invincible Member of Parliament, its much respected newspaper, the Sutton Coldfield Observer, and all in the town. I warmly commend him and all those involved in his campaign and I look forward to visiting Sutton Coldfield in due course, not least to deliver my own greetings from Tunbridge Wells to its residents.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.